CONTENTS
Thursday 25 February 1993
Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, 1993, Bill 96
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr McGuinty
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Murdock
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND) for Mr Wood
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Ms Murdock
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Klopp
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L) for Mr Conway
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Dadamo
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND) for Mr Waters
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Beall, Kathleen, legal counsel, OTAB project, Ministry of Education and Training
Landry, Peter, director, organizational design and labour relations, OTAB project, Ministry of Education and Training
Wilson, Gary, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Schuh, Cornelia, deputy chief legislative counsel
The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.
ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONSEIL ONTARIEN DE FORMATION ET D'ADAPTATION DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE
Consideration of Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10:03. We shall continue to wait for a quorum.
The committee recessed at 1003 and resumed at 1012.
The Chair: We can now begin. Go ahead, Mrs Cunningham. You have a motion.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(4.1) In the selection of directors representing labour, the importance of reflecting the proportions of Ontario's labour force that work in organized and unorganized workplaces shall be recognized."
The intent of this amendment is to ensure that organized labour does not dominate the labour representation on the board. We do know that organized labour will have a major role in shaping the province's future training programs, as it has been allocated eight seats on the board: The Ontario Federation of Labour has been allocated seven seats, while the Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council has one seat. I'd like some clarification from the parliamentary assistant, even about the statement I made, as to where we see that in writing in the legislation. Although the statement has been made, it is our understanding, I'd like that clarified.
Organized labour represents only one third of the province's workforce, and the Ontario Federation of Labour, only a portion of that. The question to the parliamentary assistant is, who will represent the views of the majority of the province's workers? So at this point, I have two questions on the agenda for this morning.
Our observation is that to allow unions, which account for approximately 35% of the workforce, to hold all of the labour seats on the board is unrealistic and unfair. I underline those two words: unrealistic and unfair. It's as simple as that. The non-unionized majority must be represented. As the Christian Labour Association of Canada stated--and my colleague yesterday mentioned this association because it has made a concern very clear to all of us--the real concern for all of us should be, can the Ontario Federation of Labour and the building trades council, in view of their philosophy and track record, be expected to act evenhandedly and in the best interests of approximately 65% of Ontario workers who do not want to belong to these organizations affiliated with unions? There were numbers of associations that asked that same question.
As we take a look at the research that was done by our research counsel, we know that this would be the single largest complaint on the part of the public with regard to the makeup of the OTAB board, not just the numbers and the underrepresentation of education, with just two seats, but within the groups themselves. We've offered a number of amendments which haven't been accepted by the government. This would be the last amendment. My colleagues from the Liberal Party made the same effort yesterday. Theirs was in three parts. This one is in just the one part: There would be less reason for the government not to support this one.
If you take away all of the rhetoric about a new era in labour relations, broad consultation, public involvement, cooperation and partnership, what is there on the public record that reassures us that these labour representatives indeed can put self-interest aside and have progressive ideas about what it might take for this province to remain as efficient, productive and competitive as it can be in a global economic economy?
In my view, the rhetoric of the government around its own intent to consult with the public and to listen, which was probably one of the main themes of its campaign before the last provincial election, is being mirrored here in these consultations. I should tell you that last evening I was out speaking on the subject of education and OTAB in Scarborough in a school, and as I reminded the public that they have now spent $53,000 just for the consultations here in this committee--
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): How much did it cost to read the names of lakes and rivers into the record?
The Chair: Don't let yourself be distracted by other members of the committee, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: To talk about somebody reading lakes and rivers into the record during question period in the House has very little to do with the fact that hundreds of people made presentations before this committee, either in person or written briefs. To compare that with some of the tactics that all of us use from time to time--the member for Oxford should have been here when the Chairman of this committee spent, how many hours was it, on the subject of auto insurance?
The Chair: If the truth be known, it was a whole month, as you recall, at 3 every afternoon, culminating in the now famous and historic record-setting 17-and-a-half-hour debate.
Mrs Cunningham: The member for Oxford is complaining about the member for Nipissing taking part of an afternoon, and this was his party? If you're going to complain, make sure you know your facts and make absolutely certain you understand in what context it is presented. We don't compare the behaviour of elected representatives--who from time to time lose their cool, including myself--to the public, who have been asked to come before this committee. Ads were put in the newspaper that cost us over $25,000.
I'm just going to say one more thing on this, because of course I don't have a lot of hope, but I did put some questions on the record that I noticed the parliamentary assistant wrote down, and I will repeat them again one by one.
But do you know what the principal in this school said last night? I think all of us should think about this. It's our responsibility to represent the public. Certainly fiscally it's important, but to listen to them is just as important. The budget for his school for supplies and services, for that whole school for the year, was $53,000. So we have now spent in this committee the budget for Knob Hill Jr School. What it would spend for all of those students and teachers on supplies, books, paper, pencils and services, we have spent in three weeks on this committee; and the government got out of that one amendment it could put forward, and to this date hasn't accepted any amendments we have put forward on behalf of the public we serve. I think that is the downfall of a democratic system, but especially this government, that said that it would do business in a different way and that it would listen to the public.
I'll repeat my two questions one by one, because they are placed a number of times in the presentations we heard. Whatever the answer is, I will be quoting the parliamentary assistant across this province in the next few months, so please be careful how you present it. I'd like it to be something you would be proud to be stating on behalf of the government of the province of Ontario. Who will represent the views of the majority of the province's workers--that would be the unorganized workers--in workplaces in the province of Ontario?
1020
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Mrs Cunningham, as we've tried to make clear over the course of both the public hearings and this clause-by-clause, we see the governing board as a whole as being responsible for the interests of all workers in the workplaces of Ontario. As you've said, you think people in public positions--I'm paraphrasing a bit here--should have the larger public interest at heart, and that's what we've written into this legislation through the order-in-council appointment of the directors.
But we're also looking at sharing the responsibility for providing training with the labour market partners. We've identified several groups there, and they'll be led by business and labour. In our consultations with those two groups, we found--using models we talked about yesterday--that the only group that can represent the interest of workers in an organized fashion is organized labour. By definition, they are organized, and organized means they are accountable and responsible to the membership in a way that unorganized workers can't be. There is no system of identifying any unorganized worker--again, by definition--who can speak for unorganized workers.
But second, there is this larger accountability that not only the directors would feel, regardless of which sector they come from, but the individual sectors, in that the credibility they will enjoy in the community will depend on the success of OTAB.
You also referred to the democratic system that is responsible for the public institutions we have now, but part of the problem, as we've heard over the course of these hearings, is that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the training systems we've developed, that our democratic system has developed. The democratic system is flexible enough to look at that system and propose alternatives, and that's what we're doing here by sharing the responsibility for the training system with the labour market partners. Through consultation with the partners, we've come up with this model that we're proposing in OTAB.
Mrs Cunningham: My second question: Given the philosophy and the track record of the Ontario Federation of Labour and the building trades council, can they be expected to act evenhandedly and in the best interests of the approximately 65% of Ontario's workers who do not want to belong to these organized, affiliated unions?
Mr Gary Wilson: We think, and I think this view is shared by many unorganized workers--those who depend on minimum wage, for instance, and know the record of organizations like the Ontario Federation of Labour in placing that floor for minimum wage or fighting for medicare, unemployment insurance. Those are kinds of issues that affect all workers, whether they're unorganized or not, and as has been pointed out, when it comes to minimum wage, very few of the members of the Ontario Federation of Labour, for example, require that kind of protection; they have contracts that address the issue of wages, and not laws like those dealing with minimum wage. So certainly there is in that record you mention a vast body of evidence that suggests they can represent the interests of all workers.
Mrs Cunningham: My third one: As we were not successful in increasing the number of education seats to five, or even three, and since the Ontario Federation of Labour education committee chairperson, Mr Turk, made the presentation before this committee, can we expect that within the labour representatives, the Ontario Federation of Labour will be asking those who do represent education interests specifically to be one or more of the labour reps?
Mr Gary Wilson: We've asked the labour partners to consider in their nominations the diversity of Ontario's population and the geographic nature of it as well, just to make sure we do get that cross-section. It has also been pointed out that labour is involved in training, so we can expect that some of its nominees might have training and education experience in their background. However, it's our responsibility to make sure that the directors who are appointed do reflect the diversity of Ontario, but as to that being a specific request, that's not there.
Mrs Cunningham: My last question would be this: The parliamentary assistant said yesterday in response to my Liberal colleague and again in response to my first question that, indeed, how could government expect the unorganized workers to choose their representatives? As you know, we would ask that half the labour seats, for instance--we didn't even give a number, but we did say in this motion that the labour seats be representative, as you've said, of the organized as well as the unorganized workers, in some proportion. We didn't put a number in because we wanted to be flexible. But the response you made is a most disturbing response to the workers of Ontario: that the unorganized workers would not be able to get together and put forward their representatives. I think I'm correct in you making that statement.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, I'm not quite sure how that would work. That's the truth.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm not sure how it would work either, but I will remind the government that I'm not sure how it worked when we ask that one director representing racial minorities be chosen. I'm not sure how that will work, but at least racial minorities in this province were given the opportunity to get together and make their selection. One director representing women: I'm not sure how that's going to work, but the government did leave it to them to make their selection, they allowed them to get together and do that. One director representing francophones; one director representing persons with disabilities. Two directors representing educators and trainers: Where we clearly understand where the five sectors are, we just gave them two directors.
Seven directors representing labour, where we really understand that 60% or 70% of the workforce is unorganized and 40% or 30% of the workforce is organized. We haven't split that out at all. We haven't given specific direction where we knew there were very clear divisions. I would make the same argument with regard to business. We know there will be seven directors representing business. The next amendment will clearly say that small and large business ought to be represented. Where we do know the specific divisions in our workforce, we should be giving clear direction, especially given the track record of the government and the strong view of the public that organized labour is running this government.
I would think this would be an opportunity for you to put forward some specific direction to labour and to business, because if we were the government, you would be contesting that big business was running the government. I can tell you right now that we would give direction to the makeup of the business group; we're not afraid to do that, because if you're the government, that's your responsibility. So once again I ask you, how can I succinctly describe to the public your reticence to direct the labour unions and the organized workers and give them the confidence to say that within this group there will be a representative of both organized and unorganized labour?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think our responsibility is to come up with a training system that works for Ontario in a way it's not working now. There is that wide agreement that the training can be improved. Our model depends on sharing the responsibility with the labour market partners, and a true responsibility is to let them make decisions that reflect the interests of their part of the labour force, or the training component. You seem to be suggesting--I think you said that if you were the government, you'd go in and name the business.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I did not say that. Let's be very clear. I would give direction in legislation that both small and large business be represented as part of the directors, within the group of directors, just like I would give very specific direction that both organized and unorganized workers be represented as a group among the seven directors representing labour. That's all we're trying to do.
Mr Gary Wilson: We're sharing the responsibility with the labour market partners in that we expect they will want to see the system work. That will be the true evaluation of how well this model works: the kind of training that is provided in Ontario. For them to work in a responsible way means they've got to make these decisions on their own and are accountable to us through the appointment process as well as the other accountability systems that are in here. We think that is the main criterion: the responsibility that each of the partners brings to the table. The accountability structure of organized labour is there, whereas it isn't in place for unorganized workers, again by definition.
1030
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to deal with this issue. First of all, I'd like to respond to something Mr Wilson said. He said the only group capable of representing working people is organized labour, because they are organized. I would suggest that is just an excuse the government is making. I think it's being quite lazy in making that particular statement, because if you're looking to ensure that all the voices in Ontario are heard, certainly this government has been creative before, and it could be looking at a different mechanism to ensure that the unorganized workers are represented as well.
Unless there's a change in that structure as far as the labour partners are concerned, I think the OTAB structure is going to be doomed. I think it is very unrepresentative. As my colleague has indicated, approximately two thirds of the workers in this province who are not unionized. In fact, the OFL doesn't even represent all of those people to begin with. I think we're looking at a structure that really is a complete sham, because I don't think you can expect all workers in this province to be represented by unionized representatives.
I would suggest that this government continue to look for a mechanism, if it's not happy with what we're suggesting here, that would attract to OTAB those individuals or those companies that do not belong to an association or a special interest group. If you take a look at the OFL and the perspective it's going to be bringing to this board, I don't believe that perspective is shared by all employees in this province. They've indicated that they believe a payroll training tax is essential and that this should be paid for by the employers and then administered by a bipartite Ontario training commission. The OFL has also indicated, so we know that's the position it's going to be bringing forward, that it supports only the public sector in providing the training; again, there's no room there, it appears, for the private trainers at all.
So we know immediately that seven of the people around that table of 22 are going to be promoting a payroll training tax paid for by employers, are going to try to eliminate any work whatsoever for the private trainers, try to make sure they drive those people out of business, just like this government's trying to drive the private child care sector out of business, because it really doesn't want anybody in the private sector to be creating new jobs for people. I can tell you that those views the OFL hold are not shared by employees in this province. People have consciously made a choice not to join a union. They do not want the OFL representing them.
I think this government is being very lazy-- I'll stress it again, very lazy--to keep saying, "These are the only organized people around." I'll tell you, you've been creative before. When you want to find a representative, you find a representative from the disabled, from the francophones, from women, from visible minorities. There is absolutely no reason why you can't take a look at non-union firms, because non-union firms have established their own communication systems for gathering the views of their employees, and you can use those systems to identify representatives of non-union employees with interests in training who are willing to serve on an OTAB board.
The very least you could have done was to place newspaper advertisements requesting individuals to apply. You've done that for other positions. However, you haven't for these. You haven't been creative. You haven't looked at alternative representation methods. I can tell you that because you haven't done that, this OTAB structure that you've got before you is doomed. It's non-representative and it's a complete sham. It does not represent workers in this province.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): How do you really feel?
Mr Sutherland: Yes, how do you really feel?
Mrs Cunningham: I wish I could afford to sit back and just criticize, instead of having to do all this work and answer the phone.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, do you want to respond to that?
Mr Gary Wilson: In response to Ms Witmer, we have come up with what we find is the most accountable system for the respective labour market partners, and we're willing to stand by that.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Brown.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): As I look at this amendment, I look at my own riding and my own experience. We do have a strong union labour force in my riding in some communities. In other communities--and this would be the bulk of the communities--there's a very rural area with small villages, small towns, typified by small businesses. It occurs to me that in areas of this province such as the ones I represent, there are workers who are being geographically disenfranchised by this insistence that all representatives come from organized labour, because the fact is that there are not, in large parts of my riding, workforces in the private sector that are organized.
I'm concerned for the people who work in the small business community, generally very small employers; that they are not going to be able to, at the board level, make their concerns for rural and northern Ontario heard on a geographic basis. I understand that this is about organization, but the implication is that large areas of this province, from the worker perspective, are going to be disenfranchised because of the government's approach.
The second thing I would like to point out to you is that that approach will mean, I would suggest to you, that the workers who have the least ability through their particular employment situations to make representations to their employer or to community colleges or trainers of any sort, to get the appropriate training in their workplaces, can't do it. Unionized organizations have a mechanism--I don't know whether it's better--to speak directly to their employer, to negotiate collective agreements, with training involved in that collective agreement.
I would like some comments from the parliamentary assistant on how this is to impact on those workers in small businesses, the fastest-growing sector in our economy, on how they are to get their views known, given the fact that they don't have the mechanism of organized labour in their workplace to make the representations at contract time and given the fact that they're geographically spread out, a lot of them--again talking from my own particular experience--through large geographic sections.
I take the district of Manitoulin, for example. Off the top--there may be more--I can think of only one organized workplace in the private sector, and that happens to be a pseudo-public sector institution. It's a nursing home. How are those private sector workers from the rural areas to be represented, where population is dispersed and they're hard to service from training aspects anyway? That's more difficult, yet you're not finding a mechanism to represent them other than saying, "Well, gee whiz, the organized labour people have a soft spot in their heart for them and certainly will represent their interests." I find that kind of answer patronizing to those workers. I think they'd rather be at the table than be told somebody else will look out for them.
1040
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Brown, we've gone over some of this already, as you know. It might sound patronizing to you, but I can tell you, the people who haven't any contracts are inordinately grateful for things like minimum wage, unemployment insurance, medicare, health and safety regulations that organized labour has fought for over the years, and not only for organized workers but for all workers.
That's the first thing, but a very important thing, in that it gives, I would say, a lot of confidence, certainly to the government, that organized labour can represent the views of all working people of Ontario when it comes to training issues. And the training that people in the unorganized sector will need is similar to what workers in the organized sector will need as well, so when it comes to representing their views around the table that OTAB represents, they will be well represented.
Mr Brown: What about the geographic concern I just expressed?
Mr Gary Wilson: Geography is one of the considerations of Ontario. As far as the appointments to the OTAB board are concerned, that will be one of the criteria used to make sure that the directors represent all the interests of the people of Ontario. It's a factor. There are the reference groups that will be established in the local boards, so that kind of system will make sure that all areas are represented.
Mr Brown: From your response, I understand that from the rural areas of this province we could expect at least the same number of directors representing workers as would be from the major centres. Could I understand that, if we're talking about geography?
Mr Gary Wilson: We haven't made the appointments yet, but when they are made, that is one of the things that is going to be taken into account: the diversity of Ontario's population and of its distribution.
I also want to point out to you paragraph 4(2)(c), the requirement that the distribution of "funding of labour force development programs and services go to all the regions of Ontario in a fair and appropriate manner." So that has certainly been considered and written into the legislation.
Mr Brown: I guess I don't have the same confidence that you're expressing. Apparently, the way we will know--because you're unwilling to put it in the legislation itself--that this is actually going to represent Ontario will be to look at the appointments that actually get made. I can tell you, I have a concern that the workers from the small business community, especially in rural areas, are not likely, from what you just told me, to receive the appropriate level of representation that they deserve on this important board, and that concerns me.
Mr Sutherland: I just want to add a couple of comments in response to Mr Brown. He says that in his area there are some sectors where there aren't a lot of unionized employees, but I think we need to understand that, pretty well, there are organized employees in all sectors of the economy. The type of training needs, yes, with some nuances, may vary a bit in terms of what they need for that sector, but the basic type of training systems are still going to be fairly well the same, whether you're a unionized employee or a non-unionized employee.
So in terms of being able to develop those effective training systems, which we're also talking about, the question is that those folks need to be able to access the training. They still can write to the board, they can write to their local board. There are all kinds of ways they can have input into the process. They don't necessarily have to be right there at the board. They can have input into the process in many different ways.
I just think of health and safety legislation and other things like that, where organized labour has clearly led the way and helped to improve working conditions for unorganized labour. I think they've done a very good job in lobbying and improving the conditions for everyone.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The agency collapsed. Do you not realize that the agency collapsed?
The Chair: Don't let these people distract you, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, I just want to say to you that you know that certainly in your riding, in the actual workplaces where health and safety really makes a difference, the conditions have improved substantially due to the result of efforts by organized labour over the years. I think the important thing is what is happening in the workplaces.
Mr Brown: Just quickly in response to Mr Sutherland, I want him to come out to Meldrum Bay and speak to Meldrum Bay outfitters at the far end of Manitoulin Island, and explain to them how this system is going to be better so that the person working at that shop can understand that he or she will be represented appropriately at the board.
This perhaps isn't the correct place, but when I look at my riding and look at the LTABs, I'm going to be having two LTABs serve my riding--at least that's what we're told--one from Sault Ste Marie and other from Sudbury. My people are living 300 kilometres from these LTABs. We have huge problems. The delivery of training into the rural areas is more difficult, more challenging. If you look at the composition of the board, I think you would have some reason to be nervous about how it will react to the reality in Meldrum Bay, Tehkummah, or Spanish or Massey.
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Ms Cunningham, please. I trust that you're moving that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4.1) In the selection of directors representing business, the importance of reflecting the different interests of small, medium and large businesses shall be recognized."
Mrs Cunningham: No, you're missing one, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Especially in view of the fact that you're previous motion was defeated, so there is no (4.1). To move an amendment entitled (4.2)--so you're moving as I indicated?
Mrs Cunningham: No. I'm moving (4.2). I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection--
The Chair: But Ms Cunningham, the reason I took the liberty of changing the (4.2) to (4.1) is because it would only be (4.2) if your previous motion had passed. So this now becomes (4.1), correct?
Mrs Cunningham: I think you're right. I just want to make sure.
The Chair: I was trying to be helpful.
Mrs Cunningham: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Chairman. That's very helpful.
The Chair: That having been moved by Ms Cunningham, go ahead, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: This is subsection 9(4.1). I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4.1) In the selection of directors representing business, the importance of reflecting the different interests of small, medium and large businesses shall be recognized."
Very quickly, I'll just say that certainly the intent of this motion with regard to the seven business directors reflects the same kind of concern out there among the workers of Ontario; that is, that all business sectors be represented within the group of seven directors; I guess I could even say eight directors. But I do want to very carefully put this motion forward because I think there is a consistency with regard to the concern when it comes to getting the best information and the best advice on the needs for training in the province of Ontario, not only the needs, but if we're really looking for input as an organization with regard to who can assist in the training across the province of Ontario, there's no doubt in our minds that we're going to be relying on small, medium, and large businesses.
1050
I think it's an opportunity for the government, certainly, to get the best advice from a very broad sector of our workforce. In order to do that and in order to make it specific with regard to our expectations and with regard to our desire to cross-reference the business group as far as possible, this would be the amendment that I would appreciate the government considering. I'd certainly be interested in hearing it's response.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. Mr Wilson, you're not in agreement with this motion?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Ramsay.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This is really an excellent amendment, and it's an amendment that I hadn't brought forward. I would certainly support this because I think it's very important that OTAB not be dominated by big business. That would be a big mistake. You have to make sure, just like on the labour side and on the business side, people in the business community are thoroughly represented, both geographically and from size, because there is a tremendous difference between a big business and a small business and their needs.
I think it's a good idea to have that in the act so that you don't just rely upon the business steering group to bring forward representatives because the people who to date have been the organized are sort of the IBMs of the world, the big companies that up till now have had the funds to provide training, have really developed a training culture and a lot of small businesses haven't been able to do that. They run on very tight margins, they're very busy just trying to keep afloat, and they haven't had the luxury really to start to do that, but we know that all business has to get involved in training.
It's going to be very important that every part of the business community is represented here and probably especially more the smaller businesses than the big ones because the big ones have tended to provide training programs and the big ones have tended to be in partnership with organized labour. Of course, labour, rightly so, has been pushing training.
So a lot of the big companies with their organizations and their unions have been on top of training, but a lot of the medium-sized and small companies have not. So I would just say, make sure that you get a good mix on that business side from people who represent all business activity in Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: I'd like the government to respond.
The Chair: Yes, one moment. I know you would and I'm sure they want to. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: In response to the support for this amendment that we've heard, of course we do, and as I've mentioned before, the requirement is there through the appointments procedure to make sure that the directors do represent the diverse nature of Ontario.
The problem with writing in the description of the businesses is that raises the question of just what is a small, medium or large business. You kind of get hung up then on definitions. There are a number of definitions that are used.
The other thing is that the directors, and I refer here to all the directors, are going to bring their own experience to this. Apart from the requirement of the appointment procedure, there's also the intent and the determination that this OTAB does deliver the kind of training that we need.
Again, it hasn't worked that well to this point, in spite of what you say, Mr Ramsay. I mentioned in the hearings what Allan Taylor said about the training in the private sector, at least, that only 30% of the companies are doing it, and that is mainly at the executive and management levels. The front-line workers don't get it.
This is one of the reasons for including workers but also including the labour market partners, so that we do get that cross-section of views. This is the reason, the whole rationale, for including the labour market partners, for sharing this responsibility with them, that government doesn't have all the answers.
What we want to do is go out to the people who are actually in the field to find out what their needs are and what their experience is. This doesn't stop simply because somebody is the president of a company. Presumably they've worked their way up through various aspects, so they'll be bringing that experience, the same way with somebody who is representing the views of workers. They come from families. They might have a family member with a disability, for instance, who might be at work and be familiar with the lack of accommodation in his position. Again, this is the strength of this system in that it casts the net of experience so much wider. We can get all this experience and participation that will be so much more inclusive. In that sense, we think the way the legislation is written is more inclusive than what the amendment suggests.
Mrs Cunningham: I think that my colleagues on this committee are very much aware of this need, whether the government wants to in fact support it or not. We heard from many boards of trade, the chambers of commerce, small and large business. They certainly seem to be able to define themselves. If the government hasn't made it its business to take a look at how in fact they do define themselves or how Statistics Canada defines small, medium and large businesses right now, I certainly think it's selective in the advice that it gets. I certainly don't have that information, because I didn't expect the parliamentary assistant to say that, but I did do a little bit of homework on one of the groups that I quoted yesterday, and I'll do a little bit more before the day's out, so that the government can at least have that information. I think being selective in what you want to know and what you want to hear is obvious in this meeting.
But, for myself, I do represent my constituency, and I do think this is the responsibility of all of us. We're not here to represent interest groups. The London Chamber of Commerce in fact did speak to all of the members from London and the member for Middlesex and put forward its concerns about representation. They did have fundamental concerns regarding the proposal to establish the Ontario training advisory board with regard to representation.
The structure of the board, they stated, "has basic flaws. The proposed model for representation of `workplace partners' is wrong." I'm trying to bring these views to the committee. "The poor communications surrounding the OTAB project," to the date that we met with the chamber, all of us from London and Middlesex, "the rush to establish the provincial body," made people "deeply suspicious of the Ontario government's true agenda."
Mr Sutherland: The rush?
Mrs Cunningham: "The rush to establish the provincial body," and I have to say, the words "truly suspicious" are warranted, because they were suspicious that the government wouldn't be listening, that it wouldn't make any changes, and this will be the last amendment where we can in fact look at the change in the makeup of the OTAB. They blamed the federal government at that point in time, but we all know now that this has not been a direction of the federal government.
In fact, the province in its legislation has changed, at least in one regard, with regard to--I think it was the francophone representation, but I'm not sure which one's different. Could I be clarified on that? There's one seat that's different with regard to the original model. Did we not add another interest group?
Mr Peter Landry: Yes, francophones have been added and municipalities.
Mrs Cunningham: And municipalities.
Mr Landry: As ex officio.
Mrs Cunningham: As ex officio, that's right.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: No, that isn't the point I'm trying to make. I am going to ask the question again, because I want to be clear myself. On the board itself, when we were going out for public hearings, is it exactly as it was when we went out for public hearings?
Mr Landry: With the local board panels and so on of last winter?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Landry: No, it has changed, based on the public hearings, by the addition of a francophone voting seat and the addition of a municipal, non-voting, ex officio seat as a level of government.
1100
Mrs Cunningham: I thought you were saying that they were both ex officio.
Mr Landry: No.
Mrs Cunningham: So as a result of those hearings, we did change the makeup of the board, and then of course the government backed off. They said we had to do it this way because this was the direction of the federal government, which is what I heard in many of the hearings, and that's why in fact there was no consultation on the governing body itself. It wasn't the intent to have consultation on the governing body. It was the intent of the government to have consultation on local boards, and all of the agendas that went out did say "local boards," and I certainly have a number of them. But that's beside the point. I'm talking about the London chamber.
"On the governing body," the chamber brings to our attention, "and in each of the councils outlined...business is given one third of the positions." They go further to say that with regard to partnerships and with regard to the business community, at least the London chamber felt that one half of the seats on the board should be given to business.
We did not bring forward that amendment, but we did bring forward an amendment in fact to reflect not only the London chamber's concern but many groups that appeared before the committee, and that was with regard to the makeup of the labour representatives: The eight directors ought to reflect in fact the makeup of our labour community, which is, to be generous, approximately 70% non-organized workers. We tried that; we failed.
We're now trying, on behalf of many representatives, to be consistent, to ask the government in fact that the eight seats be divided among small, medium and large businesses. The parliamentary assistant says that he doesn't know the definition of small, medium and large businesses. I would challenge the government in that regard. I'm sure that small and large businesses have been represented on many councils over the years here, and there would be some definition that could meet the satisfaction of the government.
I think the London chamber says it well, as did my colleague for Waterloo North, Elizabeth Witmer. With regard to the makeup of labour and the diversity that ought to be represented on the board and the makeup of the business community in London and the diversity that ought to be represented on the board, and I want to put these words on the record, in my view, and certainly as we were warned to this particular date when we in fact met with the London Chamber of Commerce, "This is at best an excuse by the government to be lazy." I think that it's very clear that their observations last spring, last fall and early this winter have not changed and the government has proven it.
They went on to say, "There are numerous, non-union firms that have established communications systems for gathering the views of their employees, and such systems can be used to identify representatives of non-union employees with interests in training willing to serve on an OTAB or local board." The local boards in fact will have to do this.
If the local boards have to do it, I can't see one reason why the government of Ontario couldn't recognize that there is a mechanism for choosing representatives from non-organized workplaces and organized workplaces from small, medium and large business. Local boards will find a way. The only group that will not find a way in the province of Ontario is the government itself, because it takes work. It takes a lot of interest. There has to be a desire. There has to be a will, and this government, for whatever reasons, does not have that will. It's very obvious. "The government needs to be creative and seek these firms out to find out how to utilize such systems. If not the OTAB structure will be non-representative and a sham."
I'm reading that from Comments on the Proposal to Establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and Associated Local Boards, prepared by the London Chamber of Commerce for presentation to the local boards consultation panel. That was the consultation local boards sent out to everybody: "We need your views on local boards." Certainly the intent of the government, we thought, was to look for a broad consultation on the OTAB structure itself. Not the communities; they were not asked to respond to the OTAB governing body.
This is dated April 7, 1992, in London, Ontario, and I have to tell you that everything they warned us about has become a reality: that the government would not listen, it would not take advice. It in fact did not seek out ways of having representation of business and labour on the governing body truly represent the business community and the labour community in Ontario. They were warned; they were told.
This is just one brief I'm reading; it happens to be my riding. I'd be most interested in listening to the member for Oxford and what he has been told in his constituency office, because I happen to know, and he knows it because they came to my office after they went to him--I'm now talking about the chamber. He knows that this is the view, and he's not representing the public, nor are other members who represent the government on this committee.
So I can tell you right now that in fact there will be sincere disappointment through chambers of commerce in the province of Ontario with regard to the makeup of the governing body and the local training boards if in fact we do not accept this amendment.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, please.
Mr Sutherland: I just want to say that I really resent the fact that a member would say I'm not representing my constituents or my public.
Mrs Cunningham: On this issue, we haven't even heard from you, so let's hear now.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, don't let yourself be distracted by other members of the committee.
Mr Sutherland: Let me just state for the record what I did, and I've tried to keep the two processes separate, unlike Ms Cunningham, who needs to realize that the local boards consultation panel wasn't strictly the OTAB process; the Canadian Labour Force Development Board was involved in that consultation as well. I took the document Skills to Meet the Challenge, called in a broad range of people from my community--labour, business, equity groups--and had a consultation right in my office to get their views--
Mrs Cunningham: Good for you. Some of us had 50 consultations.
Mr Sutherland: --summarized them and sent them on to the minister.
The Chair: One moment, please. This may be one of those 9 times out of 10, but it's very difficult for everybody here to hear what's being said when two people talk at the same time, notwithstanding how passionate people sometimes get.
Mr Sutherland: The other point is, I can read from briefs that tell the exact opposite of what Ms Cunningham has read from her briefs.
Mrs Cunningham: What about your riding? That was my issue.
The Chair: One moment. That doesn't solve the problem of people hearing what's being said; it makes it worse. Go ahead.
Mr Sutherland: The point of the matter is, I can cite from individual briefs that would say the exact opposite of the briefs that Ms Cunningham has put forward. The reality is, what you've got to work out is a compromise among all those groups. That is what has been worked out. Maybe some of the groups aren't happy with all the compromise, maybe Ms Cunningham isn't happy with the compromise, but that's the reality of the situation and we need to go from there.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask, Mr Chairman, on these hearings that we've been responsible for in the last four weeks, could I ask, as a result of the public input to these hearings, could I ask to this point, could I specifically ask the member for Oxford, what compromise has been made?
The Chair: You may put that to the committee. If Mr Sutherland wants to respond, he can.
Mr Sutherland: No, I'm not going to respond because I think a great deal of consultation has gone on, and went on before we even got to the hearings, and a lot of work done. I think we've tried to respond as best as possible and I think we've got a good process. We need to go forward.
1110
The Chair: That, Mr Sutherland, was a response. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask a subsequent question, then? Could I ask Mr Sutherland how he's going to explain to the public the $53,000 that we spent? And what was the purpose of the public hearings of the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly if we're not looking at further input and compromise? What was the purpose of these hearings?
The Chair: Ms Witmer?
Mrs Witmer: I'd just like to respond to Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson indicated, when asked, and Ms Cunningham spoke to the amendment, that it was important that we reflect the different interests of small, medium and large businesses. He indicated that there was some difficulty in coming up with the definition of small, medium and large business.
Well, I would say there's some inconsistency, because the government has certainly been able to come up with a definition in the area of pay equity and employment equity and also in the area of employment equity when we talk about the disabled. Those are all definitions that they have been able to find, and yet he's saying: "Well, we can't do that. It's just not possible to do so." So I would say there is some inconsistency. They have certainly demonstrated that they've been able to do that in the past in other pieces of legislation.
Mr Gary Wilson: Actually, what I did say was that there is a disagreement on the definitions of those terms. Ms Cunningham mentioned Statscan's definition. I think that's the organization that declared that the recession was over a couple of months ago, so whatever comes out of there isn't necessarily agreed on either.
Mrs Cunningham: That's a dumb comment. That's a stupid comment. Withdraw it.
Mrs Witmer: It's never stopped you coming out with a definition.
Mr Gary Wilson: In our view--
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, on a point of order.
Mr Gary Wilson: --it's more productive to talk about the approach that will represent the diversity of business, just as we expect the diversity of Ontario's population to be represented through the consultation with the various labour market partners and the appointments process as well.
But I wanted to say that the consultation, this idea that the government has been lazy--well, it might be true; we might be hoping that by luck we'll come upon a system that works better than the one we have now. Certainly, I think doing anything is, in the view of a lot of people, better than letting what goes on now continue. So we could be depending on that. But I think that from what we've heard of the work of the OTAB project team, the universal appreciation and acknowledgement that they have worked very hard in the consultation process at the two levels, one for OTAB as well as the local boards, to come up with a system that will work for all of Ontario, we can't be accused of being lazy.
But in the final analysis, it will depend on how well the system works. We think that by sharing responsibility with the labour market partners we will get the representation that covers all of Ontario.
Mr Huget: On a point of order, we have a member of our committee who uses an interpreter in order to participate in and follow these proceedings. I would ask the members of the third party if they would take that into consideration and please allow the conversations to go as they should. It's very difficult for us to follow all the bantering back and forth. I would just ask somebody to consider that.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski, please.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On a point of privilege, if I may: I don't think it's acceptable to use interpreters as an excuse, though, as the only reason for limiting the conversation. I think we can't single out the interpreters as the excuse for taking turns properly.
The Chair: Quite right. All of us have difficulty understanding when two or three or four or five people talk at the same time. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I'm happy that Mr Malkowski brought that to our attention because there are a lot of interjections in any committee meeting. It's hard for all of us, no matter what our abilities or disabilities are. But I was asked by Mr Huget to try and be more controlled in my responses, and so I said to him that I would. I do think we need to be reminded for everybody, not just for Gary, and I will do that. Mr Chairman, I have to tell you that it is very difficult.
The Chair: You don't have to tell me that, Mrs Cunningham. Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also want to comment. I come here sometimes under great duress because of the way that we operate with each other from time to time. I know we take great criticism in our home communities because of the level of decorum and respect that's often given to one another. When I come here and hear somebody refer to somebody else's comment as stupid, I don't even use that language with my children and I have to tell you it gives me great concern. It makes me wonder if in fact we will arrive at something here by way of an outcome that will be good for the people of Ontario. I just put that on the record.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Huget, please.
Mr Huget: Very briefly, I would like to thank Mrs Cunningham for having the discussion that we've had in the last couple of minutes. My concern was not to single out Mr Malkowski, but also I think to deal with specifically the interpreter, who is valiantly trying to follow the conversations, as was Hansard.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Kormos, perhaps to end this discussion on a point that was near the beginning, I would like to ask Mr Landry to clarify his comments to Mrs Cunningham over the issue of what changes were made as a result of the consultation.
The Chair: By all means.
Mr Landry: My response to Mrs Cunningham was focused on the number of board members and the changes to the numbers, so the increase of francophones and municipalities. But I think it is worth mentioning that we made another change that didn't affect the numbers but allowed for people with disabilities to have an alternate on the board should they choose. Not only the people representing people with disabilities, but anybody who happened to be on the board with a disability has the right to have an alternate to act should they be absent or unable to act.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Can I ask a subsequent question from that, then? Does that change of direction, which I approve of, appear in the act?
Mr Landry: Yes. Subsection 9(10) says, "On the request of any director who is a person with a disability, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an alternate who shall perform the duties and have the powers of the director when that director is absent or unable to act."
Mr Malkowski: Can we just back up? On a point of clarification, can you say what section number this was again, please?
Mr Landry: Subsection 9(10), "Alternates."
The Chair: Are you finished?
Mr Landry: I am finished.
The Chair: Thank you. Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I thank the government for that clarification for a couple of reasons. It just goes to show you that in spite of the lack of direction from the government with regard to the openness around looking for input to the makeup of the OTAB governing body, they in fact did get some good advice and they took it. I think that was part of an open consultation process which I certainly was part of.
I do want to make a couple of comments with regard to the last numbers of interchanges. I didn't think that I did put on the record the word "stupid" with regard to Mr Wilson's remarks about Stats Canada making some direction or making some statement about the recession being over and that therefore Stats Canada isn't a source that we ought to take seriously. I would just say that Mr Wilson's comment--I don't think I was on the record at all, but if I can be on the record--was irresponsible because in fact the public of Ontario and Canada spend a lot of money looking for the best statistical information that we can get in this country, and Stats Canada has made significant improvements and considerable advances in its technology and in its information-gathering. I think all governments across certainly this country and certainly across the world look to Statistics Canada for the best information they can get.
I think it was probably a comment in jest on behalf of the parliamentary assistant, and he's smiling, therefore I think sometimes that's a perfect indication of what goes on in this committee from time to time. Most of us walk out of this room with the same kind of regard and respect we've always had for each other in this very tough job. I just want to put that on the record. The parliamentary assistant and I have known each other for a couple of years and we've always gotten along just fine. He has a job to do right now and so do I, and I'm trying to do it.
1120
I think the other comment that was made was with regard to this legislation, and again I don't think the parliamentary assistant would like me to--not challenge him, because I'm giving him an opportunity to clarify something he said and that is that anything is better than we have now. I would say to that comment, that anything is better than what we have now, again is not a responsible statement for the parliamentary assistant to the minister to make. It is our opportunity, a golden opportunity, especially for this government, to come forward with the best legislation that will affect the training of our young people and the retraining of our workers in this province. This is a golden opportunity, and I think we should be striving, first of all, to set up the best governing body, the best OTAB we can and striving to get the support of the public and the support of those whom we will rely on so heavily to make this work.
That is why I have been bringing forward, as have my colleagues, the amendments we've been bringing forward to this date, to make things better. We just really believe they will make it better. We also strongly feel that if the government is going to have public hearings and if people are going to go to the extent of putting together the best advice they can--there is just some of it. You see me carrying this around. These are the briefs we singled out that gave forward a consensus of opinion according to the research, actually. We used the research that was put together for the committee, pulled out those briefs and tried in fact to put them into groupings, took the majority of opinions and brought them forward where there was consensus on behalf of the presenters.
That is why, when I brought forward some of the amendments on the makeup of the board, I didn't take all the amendments that were put forward to me even by the London Chamber of Commerce. I didn't use everything they would have liked me to put forward. I have to tell you one group that will be particularly disappointed, because it spent a lot of time following these hearings, is the teachers in the province of Ontario. We received numbers of briefs, and more recently, I received more today from individual school boards. If this committee could only understand that it has been the driving force behind training in the province of Ontario. They took it very seriously. Groups of teachers, school board trustees, curriculum writers, trainers within school boards, liaison people with boards who have been working in the training sector now for 20, 30 years put committees together. They took this process very seriously and they put their briefs together and they said, "At the very least, let the boards across this province be recognized as considerable players in this whole area of skills training."
You know, this government literally ignored the school boards. You can say what you like about two seats and people getting together, but they weren't chosen. They feel they have a very different perspective to bring to the table than community trainers or universities or colleges. The colleges and the trainers were chosen. That's fine, but they do feel they've been left out. At the very least, the government could have put forward one more seat for education, and it didn't. The briefs that we're all getting now, I'm sure you're getting the same ones I am, because they're coming from the clerk. Some are coming to me individually because of the fact that I happen to be the critic and I try to get them to the clerk's office so everybody can see them.
I am just saying that the criticism and sort of the offhandedness and the responses that we're getting in our role--and yes, I'm a bit insulting from time to time. I've put a lot of work into this. It's been my particular responsibility, within our party and within our caucus, to do that. But others have as well and this is serious business. This isn't a place where we come to throw things back and forth. I know what Mr Martin's saying and I tried to respond to that comment. But we're working very hard in this process and I think the government has been particularly unresponsive during these committee hearings. I do feel that ultimately you will receive a just criticism. Quite frankly, I don't blame this on the parliamentary assistant, but I will blame it on the new minister and I will be asking you, Mr Chairman, that the new minister come before this committee before these deliberations are over. I think it's incumbent upon him to hear from the opposition critics with regard to how we feel the process has moved forward and how we feel about the response of the government during these public hearings.
I know Mr Cooke. I have worked quite closely with him in the last couple of years in my position as whip for the party and certainly during the annexation hearings in London. Something has happened, in my view, because it wouldn't be his style; it wouldn't be something I would expect that he would buy into. I don't feel that in his new position as the Minister of Education and Training, he can afford to ignore the input of the public during three weeks of public hearings. I think that, quite frankly, the parliamentary assistant has probably been given his marching orders and the deputy has probably been given his as well and they've been saying: "Don't make any changes. It won't make a difference."
Well, it may not make a difference; I don't know. I'm expecting and hoping that all of us, no matter what happens during these hearings, will move forward and make this thing work. That is the bottom line for me. But it would work much better if the public in Ontario and all of these people put forward their suggestions and could at least be assured that the government had reasonable responses to our requests for amendments, and it simply doesn't.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. We're going to have a 10-minute recess. Thank you kindly.
The committee recessed at 1128 and resumed at 1147.
The Chair: We should resume now, please. Is there any further debate on Mrs Cunningham's motion? There being no further debate on Mrs Cunningham's motion, all in favour please indicate. All opposed? Mrs Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Is there any debate regarding section 9 of the bill?
Interjection: Recorded vote.
The Chair: I'm sorry, recorded vote.
All in favour of section 9 of the bill please raise their hand and keep their hand raised until their name is called.
Ayes
Haeck, Huget, Malkowski, Martin, Sutherland, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).
The Chair: All opposed, please indicate. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.
Nays
Brown, Cunningham, Offer, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Chair: We're now addressing section 10 of the bill.
Mr Ramsay: Just to make a comment, Mr Kormos. After hearing all the first nations groups that came before us, I had prepared a motion to delete this. But upon hearing on just about the very last day the Métis association spokesperson, I decided that I would leave this in. I just want to put on the record that this would allow the opportunity for any native group at some time to come into OTAB if it so wished.
The Chair: Thank you, sir.
All in favour of section 10 of the bill, please indicate.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't have it in front of me; I'm sorry.
Mr Ramsay: It's just the bill.
The Chair: Opposed? Section 10 of the bill carries.
We are addressing section 11 of the bill. Is there any discussion or debate around section 11 of the bill?
All in favour of section 11 of the bill, please indicate. Opposed?
Section 11 of the bill carries.
1150
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, subsection 12(2). I move that subsection 12(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Public meetings
"(2) The directors' meetings shall be open to the public, except that confidential personnel matters shall be dealt with in private."
I think that many of us heard the necessity for this institution to be deliberating in public. They're accountable to the public. We certainly recognize the fact that confidential personnel matters in any public body would be excluded from public meetings and held in camera. We recognize that.
There were many who were extremely concerned about the fact that the intent of the government was that just two directors' meetings shall be open to the public. In that regard, Mr Chairman, I would ask that we hear from the government on this amendment, and that they also, in their response, put on the record as to why they chose the number two.
Mr Gary Wilson: The reason for two is to suggest a minimum and certainly not a maximum. It's up to the board itself. As I say, we want to share responsibilities, so the board will have a lot of discretion in how it conducts its meetings. It's a matter that will be addressed in the bylaws, not in legislation, as far as the public meetings that are held are concerned. Certainly, as you say, we heard a lot of people asking about the public nature of that, and as we pointed out in those hearings, two is only a minimum. It's not to say that's how many there should be.
As far as the specific wording of your amendment is concerned, you mentioned confidential personnel matters, but there could be other matters that might need to be addressed in a private meeting, so that's why it's difficult to specify. There are other matters too that can be addressed, as far as say the release of the minutes and reports, which can be public as well.
We think the way this is worded, it is just a minimum. The public nature of it then should be addressed by the board itself through its bylaws, which again, the government has a lot of influence on.
Mr Offer: To add to the debate, I think you should recognize that many people with a great many years of experience have made the point that when one puts in phrases like "At least every two months there shall be a meeting," or "At least two directors' meetings shall be open to the public," that in practice becomes not the minimum but the maximum. That becomes what in fact turns out to be the practice.
I think concerns around a variety of issues will continually bring up that issue. It's not just in dealing with this bill but in others. There is a real fragility that you incorporate when you say "There shall be at least..." because in practice that then becomes, as a minimum, the maximum. You will not get more than two public meetings a year. That's what will happen in practice. You will not have more than a meeting every two months. That will become the maximum.
The question of substance is, why is this necessary when the impact will be that you are not creating a basement, you are creating an attic? That's the top level you're going to get. I think you are just flying in the face of what I expect you want to accomplish.
Mrs Witmer: I would certainly support this motion. I think we need to be encouraging the meetings to be public meetings. Since obviously OTAB is going to be responsible for most of the publicly funded training in this province, and since it's also going to be spending significant, huge sums of taxpayers' money, I think it's absolutely essential that in order to show some accountability to the electorate and also to the taxpayers, the taxpayers have an opportunity to either attend the meetings or receive the minutes of the meetings.
I would agree with Mr Offer. I think if you set a number, two, that's exactly how many public meetings there will be, only two. As I say, this is public money. There needs to be accountability. I don't see this being any different than a school board or a municipality. I believe the public has a right to know what's going on and what decisions are being made on their behalf.
Mr Brown: Further to that point, I think the issue of accountability for a board administering these large dollars is one of public concern, as it has been taken out of the elected officials' realm and subjected to an appointed board.
The issue, I think, goes beyond saying that two meetings should be open or that all meetings should be open. What I would like the parliamentary assistant to address is the issue of how the public knows when the meetings are. You can have closed public meetings by just not indicating to the public when the open public meeting is, if you follow me. There is a necessity for notice, for the public to know when the meeting is occurring and where it will occur, in order that people in the general public, people in concerned groups and individuals can actually attend a public meeting. A public meeting is only public if the public knows when and where it is. I would ask how that is to be addressed.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Brown, if you're suggesting OTAB will gain the public confidence by playing shell games like that, I think we all recognize that's not going to work, that you hold a public meeting and then not have it carried out. The point is, what we've done here is made sure in the Legislature that there will be public meetings. However, the number has to be addressed in the bylaws.
This is a government agency that's designed to carry out a specific function, that is, to improve training in the province. It's got to find ways of doing that successfully. As I say, it's got to enjoy the public confidence to do it successfully. By putting this in the legislation, at least some meetings will be open to the public. The exact number will be addressed in the bylaws, and the government has control over that. There still is the openness through the freedom of information act that applies to this agency as well. So there's ample scope for public monitoring of what OTAB is doing.
Mr Brown: Mr Wilson, I wasn't suggesting for a moment that they were going to play a shell game. All I was asking was how the public will know; what is the mechanism whereby the people of Ontario can be assured through this legislation that in fact people have access to the public meetings. I wasn't suggesting for one moment that a board would intentionally do this, but I want an assurance in the legislation itself of what kind of notice the public may get. You're not prepared to give any assurance that the public has access to the information surrounding an upcoming meeting.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said, Mr Brown, the effectiveness of OTAB will depend on its public accountability, that is, whether it's doing its job. The actual nature or the time and place is an administrative matter that will be met by the bylaws, not through the legislation.
Mr Brown: I find that not to be terribly satisfactory. If the ministry wants to proceed in that fashion, then it should be presenting the bylaws or regulations in front of this committee right now so that we would know and have some assurance that what you're saying is in fact the case. My experience with regulations is that committees of the Legislature seldom see those. We seldom have the opportunity to debate them. If we cannot assure it in the legislation, surely the ministry would be prepared to table today the regulations that are to accompany this bill, so that I may be assured that the point I'm making is being addressed. I have no way of knowing that as a legislator and that offends me.
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Brown, what we're trying to do here is establish the governing board for OTAB, and the regulations can't be described until the board is formed.
1200
Mr Offer: There is no provision in the bill for regulations.
Mr Brown: My colleague just points out to me that there's no section here that permits the regulations on this matter. It's not being addressed. I don't see the ability to make those regulations for public notice in the bill. How does that happen?
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Brown, you've raised the question of the bylaws, which is what covers this matter as far as the public meetings go, not the regulations.
Mr Brown: Maybe you could help me here. How does this work? You talk about bylaws; I talk about regulations. They're obviously different. Maybe you could just explain to me what the difference is and how this in fact works.
Mr Gary Wilson: The bylaws refer to the time and place of meetings, for instance, the ones that will be open to the public.
Mr Brown: And who sets those?
Mr Gary Wilson: The board of OTAB will set those.
Mr Brown: So the board of OTAB will determine the bylaws?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mr Brown: But there will be regulations accompanying this bill, I assume.
Mr Gary Wilson: For other purposes. That's right.
Mr Brown: I'll just rest my case, Mr Chair, on the premise that for a board that is charged with such a responsibility and such a large number of dollars, I think it would behoove the government to be looking at a way that we could have some level of comfort, that this is fully open, and that people will have the opportunity to know when, where and what will be discussed at these board meetings.
Mr Offer: Just to add to the comments of Mr Brown, could you please explain to the committee what is anticipated in the area of notice?
Mr Gary Wilson: Notice of public meetings, you mean?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: I guess that's going to be set by the board.
Mr Offer: I know it's going to be set by the board. I can read that. I understand that. The question I have is, what is envisioned by the government in terms of the type and form of notice you would expect to be set by the board?
Mr Gary Wilson: Those details haven't all been worked out, Mr Offer, but at the same time, they're going to be adequate to meet the need of informing the public about public meetings. I think that's quite clear. As I say, if OTAB is going to enjoy any kind of confidence by the public, then it's got to carry on in a way the public can be confident about.
Mr Offer: In a matter like this, I recognize full well the difficulty of setting in legislation what the notice shall contain, where it shall be and how it shall be, but I also can't understand why there can't be a provision in the legislation that says a notice must be given. There's just nothing in the bill that even speaks to the issue of notifying the public.
I understand how the drafters of the legislation will say, "We can't dot all the i's and cross all the t's," but surely there can be a broad direction that the principle of notice to the public will be embraced in the legislation, the particulars of which are yet to be decided but the principle of which is accepted. There's nothing in the bill that speaks of this. They just say there's going to be a couple of meetings periodically.
Mr Gary Wilson: That speaks very directly that they have to be open.
Mr Offer: The point that's made is, you can have a meeting which is open to the public, but we're not talking about the meeting at this point being open to the public; we're talking about the public being notified that the meeting is open to the public. It's different. It's like sitting down for a dinner and saying, "Well, sit down with a table and some chairs." You're responding to the table; we're saying you've got to have some chairs.
Mr Gary Wilson: We think it's implied in the way the legislation is written that the meetings will indeed be open.
Mr Offer: Okay, if you don't embrace the principle, you don't embrace the principle.
Mrs Cunningham: Just to bring to the attention of committee members the recommendation of the Ontario school board sector working group that this amendment be put to ensure that all meetings of the OTAB governing body are open to the public. I think this in fact is a perfect example of where school boards can be helpful with regard to their experiences in skills training, development and education programs.
We all know about these kinds of requirements for open access to school board meetings, meaning that the public are there to witness if they want, because this is a body that is paid for by the taxpayers: Presentations are dealt with in public; appeals, as long as it's not a personnel matter; appeals around a decision to move forward with a certain program; any reports and information.
We're looking for a well-informed public, anyone who wants to audit or monitor meetings as currently exist here in this committee right now, unless we were to go in camera for personnel matters. To my knowledge, there aren't any meetings of publicly funded bodies that would be held in camera except for personnel and property. We didn't put property in because we didn't think that this particular board would deal in property; we thought about it. We would give them the credit if they had to deal in property to move to in camera. Those are the two examples, personnel and property matters for school boards, for municipalities, and by practice, the Council of Regents.
The YMCA: I thought it was interesting that they brought it to our attention. I think that's the group that's particularly interested in openness, and the ONE-STEP, the Ontario Network of Employment Skills Training Projects, also recommended that all meetings of the OTAB governing body should be open to the public.
When I first saw this, I thought it was a mistake, because it's such a giant leap backwards. The expectation in any legislation governing a body of this significance would be that it follow the practices of any public body, and that is that it go in camera for personnel and property matters. In this instance, we very carefully didn't put property in because we're not looking at this governing agency as being involved in property but, more importantly, in programs.
One goes back to the very beginning of the bill, which is always important for us to do. "The bill establishes the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board...a crown agency which is to assume broad responsibility for the promotion, funding, coordination, design and provision of programs and services with respect to labour force training and adjustment." You tell me why we wouldn't be having all of the meetings held in public.
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. All those opposed, please indicate.
Mr Brown: We'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: It's nice to call for that at the beginning of the vote being called. All those in favour, please raise their hands and keep their hands raised.
Mr Sutherland: Sorry, can you repeat what the motion is, Mr Chair.
The Chair: It's Ms Cunningham's motion.
Mr Sutherland: Okay, fair enough.
Ayes
Brown, Cunningham, Offer, Witmer.
Nays
Haeck, Huget, Malkowski, Martin, Sutherland, G. Wilson.
Mrs Cunningham: Are we going further now? I have an appointment at 12.
The Chair: It is 12:10. On Monday, it had been put to the committee that the schedule would be revised so that we would sit from 10 till 12:30 today and through till 5:30 so as to compensate for the two hours that we lost on Wednesday morning, which is why we sat till 5:30 yesterday and till 12:30 on the day prior, Tuesday. Do you want a brief recess?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. I need a recess. I've got a phone call set up, and I need to make it.
The Chair: Recess for five minutes, please.
The committee recessed at 1211 and resumed at 1217.
The Chair: All right, we shall resume.
Mrs Witmer: I would like to move that subsection 12(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Quorum
"(3) Fourteen directors, five of whom represent business and five of whom represent labour, are required to constitute a quorum.
"Decision-making
"(4) A decision of the directors requires the approval of 14 directors, five of whom represent business and five of whom represent labour."
The reason and intent behind this amendment, which really of course is the double majority voting requirement, is that any proposal that would be put before the OTAB board would have to be supported by a majority of both business and labour and, therefore, a majority of the complete board.
I think we've seen the problems if you don't have this type of double majority voting requirement at the bipartite Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Certainly, there has been a demonstration there of the difficulty of decision-making when you have a joint labour-management organization. That agency, as we know, was created two years ago, and it certifies and it sets training standards for the 100,000 job safety staff required at the present time in all Ontario workplaces with more than 20 employees.
The instruction was to begin last spring. However, that was stalled because of the labour-management disagreement over how many core training hours each safety officer would receive. Most of us know that labour wanted 120 hours while business proposed fewer hours and special consideration for some low hazard industries.
That dispute could not be resolved at the bipartite Workplace Health and Safety Agency and, as a result, five of the nine business representatives resigned and there was a call for the resignation of the management co-chair because they argued that he no longer represented the interests of business. The business representatives, of course, believed that the Minister of Labour had interfered and that he had leaned on the co-chairman to swing his vote in favour of the adopted proposal, which creates really a three-tier program ranging from a minimum of one week's training to a maximum of three weeks.
Certainly, it was the experience at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency that prompted John Howatson of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to demand safeguards, as did many of the other presenters that appeared before us, against one group overwhelming another by the requirement of a double majority in voting. This would then require a proposal to be supported by a majority of both business and labour and a majority of the complete board.
1220
Bill 96 will have the same types of problems if it doesn't have this double majority voting requirement safeguard. Unfortunately, the government has left the decision-making procedures to be determined at a later date by regulation.
We had the Ontario Chamber of Commerce point out that legislation at the present time relies on consensus decision-making, but they expressed concern because there was no indication of how that consensus is to be defined and achieved. They were concerned that this casualness about the decision-making process is an invitation for disaster--experienced, of course, as I've indicated, at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
The chamber went on to say: "We do not believe that anybody can in good conscience support the bill without knowing what the decision-making process will be....People do, with good intentions and clear conscience, sometimes disagree with each other. There will be occasions where there will be substantial disagreement on the governing body, yet the act is silent on how those agreements are to be resolved. If OTAB is to be given decision-making powers, it is essential that both of the workplace partners, workers and employers, support any major initiatives."
The OTAB business steering committee also recommended that a double majority voting requirement be placed in the legislation. Certainly, because of past experience with the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and because of the request by many of the presenters that appeared before us, employees and employers, I would hope that the government would support this double majority voting requirement. However, I have a question for Mr Wilson.
Mr Wilson, have there been discussions with the partners regarding the double majority voting requirement, and has the government already given quietly their assurance, or even in writing, that there will be a double majority voting requirement?
Mr Gary Wilson: There certainly have been discussions on how the voting will proceed, but the reason it's not written out in the legislation is that it more properly belongs in regulations.
The other thing is that what we're trying to do is set up a model that will encourage as much consensus as possible so that that will become the guiding rule, and some other mechanisms that would encourage reaching a consensus before things came to a vote.
In any case, certainly there are discussions to make sure all the labour market partners have a role in decision-making, however it is achieved.
Mrs Witmer: I'm going to ask you again: Has any group been given assurance in writing that there will be a requirement that there will be a double majority, to your knowledge?
Mr Gary Wilson: You suggest it was done quietly. In fact, there was a letter written to outline what our thinking is about the voting procedure, and it would be a double majority plus two of the other groups.
Mrs Witmer: So a letter has been circulated to people in this province indicating that that is the direction the government intends to go at the present time, or is that a guarantee to people in this province that indeed there will be a double majority plus two?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, again, the decision-making procedure will be laid out in the regulations. The regulations can be written only after the governing board is established, so in that sense, there can't be any guarantees at this point. It's again a matter of discussion with the labour market partners and the government.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm wondering why the government is so reluctant to put this into the bill, knowing that there have been severe problems created in the operation of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, we think there will be more problems that are created. For instance, in the way it's written out in your amendment, this would rule out the other groups, including the educators and trainers whom you are claiming to represent so strongly. Yet in the voting mechanism that you lay out in the legislation, you would deprive them of any say in voting matters and even in quorum.
Mrs Witmer: We're simply dealing here with the two major groups who have traditionally been in confrontation and asking that at least there's a double majority from those two groups.
Mr Gary Wilson: But you've done it in a way that excludes the other people who have been historically excluded from issues surrounding training, and this is what we're trying to do: bring them in. You, as I say, made a very strong representation on behalf of a group that you are now about to exclude from a very important process.
Mrs Witmer: Those people will not be excluded. We're simply saying that in order to avoid what has happened in the past, this would be our recommendation.
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, certainly we're trying to do that and have set up this partnership, but not at the exclusion of other groups that have been historically excluded, which is what your amendment does.
The Chair: Mr Offer, please.
Mr Offer: Speaking to this matter, it's similar to a motion of amendment which I'm hopefully going to be presenting in the afternoon, but the parliamentary assistant and staff will know, in response to the question specifically put forward by Ms Witmer, that there is in fact a written confirmation by the Minister of Skills Development, Richard Allen. That is under date February 2. It is to the steering committee chairs, the labour market partners, and it has indicated that there will be a double majority. The question is--ministry staff shake their heads. It just indicates, and I read right from the letter:
"Only where consensus cannot be achieved, and where any other intermediate steps have failed to yield an acceptable resolution, would an issue come to a final vote. For any motion to be confirmed in that vote, it would require the support of a majority of the full board (at least 12 of 22), including a majority of the business representatives (five of eight), a majority of the labour representatives (five of eight), plus a vote from each of at least two of the remaining five labour market partner groups. These are the requirements for an affirmation. Failure to meet any of these requirements would result in the defeat of the motion." This is signed by your minister.
The minister of the crown has sent this letter to the major participants in this process. He has indicated that if consensus can't be achieved, then this is how the voting shall take place. The question is--and I understand all about memorandums of understanding and all of those things--why cannot the voting procedure, as was stipulated by the minister of the crown who is in charge of this legislation, be put in the legislation?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, as I said in my answer to Mrs Witmer, the problem with putting it in the legislation is that it risks becoming the process of working. I think you yourself strongly argued in the earlier amendment that this is what would happen, so you understand well the implications of doing that. In this matter which is so important, because that is not the only way of deciding issues, we are basing this on a consensual approach. That is what we are encouraging--consensus--before the need for voting happens.
Mr Offer: Mr Parliamentary Assistant, all of the labour market partners know that this is the process that's going to be followed. The minister has already indicated this. The issue that you bring forward as to whether there's going to be consensus or not because of a vote has already been laid to rest, because the minister has indicated that if consensus can't be achieved, this is the way the vote's going to take place. So the thing that you've just said is history. The minister has already indicated that there will be a double majority requirement if consensus can't be achieved.
What we are saying is, we surely do hope that consensus will be able to be achieved, but the fact of the matter is that all of the participants know, as they sit around the table, that if consensus can't be achieved, they're going to take this letter out and say, "Okay, let's have the vote." We are saying that it seems much more proper that if these are the words of the minister who was then in charge of this legislation and was able to sign his name to the bottom, then surely for all those people who want to put some faith and trust and hope in the OTAB process, that should be found in legislation. Surely it should. And if you can't understand how and why it should, then I'm sorry. As legislators, we should be, more than anybody, aware of the majority rules in this place, and the minister of the crown has indicated this. All of the partners know that if they can't arrive at a consensual agreement, then these words must kick in. We are saying that in order to ensure that the words of the minister are followed, these words should be found in legislative form. There is absolutely no argument that could be made against that unless you are saying the minister was incorrect.
Mr Gary Wilson: The minister is not incorrect at all. What he has done is laid out one of the possibilities for the--
Mr Offer: No, not at all.
Mr Gary Wilson: I say one of the possibilities, because you're highlighting the voting aspect, but he mentions consensus as being the preferred route, and then there's also a mediation process that he refers to in that letter.
Mr Offer: I agree. I accept all of that. But the fact of the matter is that the minister has said we hope to have an agreement, we hope to have a mediation, and if we don't have that, then we're going to have a vote, and if we have a vote, this is how it's going to follow. I'm saying that's well and good. I say let's follow what your minister said. Your boss said this. Let's follow this. Put it in legislation. Let the world be able to rely on the words of the minister. Hopefully there will be consensus, and if not consensus, then mediation, and then, if not mediation, look to the legislation. That can all be done by a memorandum of understanding, because all of the members who are at the table will know that's the process that has got to be followed.
Why would you be so afraid of putting in legislation the words of the minister? I'll tell you why: because this can be changed, that's why. Please, that's the reason. The reason that you don't want to put it in legislation is because this can be changed and legislation can't be, and the labour market partners should be very concerned when members of the government are afraid to put in legislative form the words of their own minister. There's only one conclusion that could be drawn, and that is that this, when this is passed, is going to be changed.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We are recessed until 2 o'clock.
The committee recessed at 1232.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1407.
The Chair: It's 2:07. We will continue to wait for a quorum. Thank you.
The committee recessed at 1407 and resumed at 1410.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): It's 2:10. A quorum is now present. We were debating a Progressive Conservative motion on subsection 12(3). Mr Offer had the floor. He still has the floor.
Mr Offer: As I indicated earlier, I was in support of the amendment put forward by Mrs Cunningham and indeed had spoken in support of that amendment by using the words of the minister of the crown. I believe I had said all that's required to be said on this amendment at this point in time and as such will leave any further comment for other amendments.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comment? All those in favour of Mrs Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Ramsay, you have a motion?
Mr Ramsay: Yes. I move that subsections 12(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Public meetings
"(2) The directors' meetings shall be open to the public, except that confidential personnel matters shall be dealt with in private.
"Quorum
"(3) The following are required to constitute a quorum:
"1. Five directors representing business.
"2. Five directors representing labour.
"3. Three directors representing the other groups named in subsection 9(2), and the group named in section 10 if an additional director has been appointed under that section."
I believe that's to the deal with native people.
"Decision-making."
I'd like to make an amendment to my amendment here, if that is in order, because I was basing this number, 13 directors, on a previous amendment that I hoped would have been passed. Since it didn't, I'd like to just amend that to 12 right now to keep it consistent with the bill in its present form. Subsection (4) would then read:
"(4) A decision of the directors requires the approval of twelve"--not 13--"directors, five of whom represent business and five of whom represent labour."
Is that in order, to amend my own amendment?
The Vice-Chair: I believe it is. The advice from the clerk is that it is in order. Do you wish to speak to your motion?
Mr Ramsay: Yes. I know that before the lunch-hour break there was a similar motion moved by my colleague Ms Cunningham of the third party. The reason I believe both of us have wanted to bring this to the attention of the government is that we think it's very important, for OTAB to have the public credibility, that all directors' meetings be open to the public. I believe the act states that there should be two meetings open to the public. I don't think this is an area of public policy where issues have to be discussed and decided upon behind closed doors. I believe discussions in regard to training and adjustment for working women and men in Ontario should be out in the open. I think that's very important.
The next part of my amendment speaks to a quorum. I'm quite concerned that the government has not addressed any sort of dispute resolution process in the bill. The government is fully aware that in the fall the health and safety agency had some severe problems in finding itself in deadlock. In the end, the government actually had to intervene. In some people's view, it actually fell apart. We don't want OTAB to fall apart, and I would really ask the government, if it doesn't accept my dispute resolution mechanism or the Tories'--and I believe there's another one coming from my colleague Mr Offer--to at least find a dispute resolution mechanism and put it in the bill so there's going to be some guidance there.
What I've tried to do is keep the intent of the bill and make sure that it's still the clients and the customers driving the system, as the government wants and I certainly agree with. Therefore, there's got to be a majority of directors from the business side, a majority of the directors from the labour side and not a majority necessary from the education equity group in total, so that it is driven by workers and business.
I'm going to finish these remarks now because I had to excuse myself for another meeting over the lunch-hour and I missed the parliamentary assistant's response to Ms Cunningham's amendments. I'd like to close right now on this and just hear what Mr Wilson's response is to why the government doesn't have a dispute resolution mechanism in the bill.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thanks, Mr Ramsay. It's true that this is very similar to a motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative critic. The answer, then, is largely the same. The preferred method of arriving at decision-making in the OTAB board of governors will be through consensus. Therefore, to set out anything in the legislation would become the point of reference and would lead to that being the method of least risk, that possibility. Consensus is the model we're looking for.
Secondly, there's a mediation process being considered as well, so that in cases where consensus can't be reached immediately there will be a possibility, short of actually having to have a vote, that would settle the matter, again with the idea that, as far as possible, consensus would be the way of arriving at the decision-making. Again, that's after consultation with the labour market partners and agreeing with them or at least finding the agreement that this is the way to proceed, that because of the agreement that we're trying to improve the training system in Ontario, this can be done in a way that people can recognize other people's interests and move towards a resolution on a consensus basis.
As far as the matter of the open meetings is concerned, the legislation just speaks to the fact that two have to be public, to show that there is a public aspect to this, leaving the matter of just how many up to the board of directors when it sets out its bylaws and through the regulations. There are other ways, though, of coming at the deliberations of the agency. As with any other public agency, there is the matter of releasing reports or minutes, where that is deemed appropriate, as well as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which provides access to the deliberations.
Again, those matters are covered, we think, in a way that is appropriate to what we're trying to do here, by setting out in the legislation what should be there as a guide and then leaving for, in the one case, the regulation, and, in the other, bylaws actually how it works out in practice.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Wilson, I accept your argument that it certainly is preferable that all decisions made by OTAB should be reached by consensus. I think that would be the ideal. God knows we would all hope that this is what will happen. The question I have for you, though, because we've had past experience with other agencies, is, what if that doesn't happen? Shouldn't we put in the act, then, that decision-making preferably should be derived by consensus but have some sort of qualifier in there, "But if it isn't, we give direction to that board as to how to resolve disputes"?
I'm open to any argument, actually, I'm not partial to mine; I just tried to design one that was in the spirit of the bill that you've intended so that it is driven by labour and business. So I would be open to any mechanism. I'm just concerned that we've left it wide open and we could have a problem here.
Mr Gary Wilson: We believe that this way of doing it, again, leaves it more open than actually specifying it in the legislation would do. In fact, we think it would be the opposite; of course, by putting it in the legislation, then that would become the way of proceeding. The mechanism that I think would provide the greatest flexibility is through the directors themselves to agree upon it through the bylaws, which, of course, the government has a role in approving.
Mr Ramsay: Okay. Thank you very much.
1420
The Vice-Chair: Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I would certainly support the motion that's been put forward by Mr Ramsay, and I think we've talked about the need for directors' meetings to be public. As far as the quorum is concerned, I would agree that we need five directors representing business, five from labour and three from the other groups named.
I'd like to focus on the decision-making, because obviously that's going to be the most critical as far as the operation of OTAB is concerned, and it's going to be that decision-making process that impacts on the success or failure of OTAB. Certainly this morning I spent considerable time outlining some of the difficulties that had been experienced by the workplace health and safety organization.
It's interesting, I have a letter here that was written by Mr Allen on November 20, and it was written to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce was concerned about the fact that decisions of OTAB's governing body might run into some difficulty and it asked that they be based on a double majority, which is more or less what is being requested here plus three.
This is Mr Allen's response, and he says: "The most important goal with respect to decisions taken by OTAB is that they should strive, whenever possible, to base decisions on a consensus among all groups represented on the board. Where consensus cannot be reached, I understand your concerns that a simple majority may not always be suitable. The concept of a double majority approach as a proposed alternative needs considerable discussion and refinement."
He mentions that there are a couple of issues that need to be examined. For example: "Under what circumstances should the board utilize this approach? How do we ensure that an appropriate role is maintained for the other labour market partners represented on the board (other than business and labour)? What would be done to avoid or resolve potential stalemates?"
"Questions such as these," says Mr Allen, "must be answered before we can enshrine any approach to decision-making. I would encourage business and the other labour market partners to enter into discussions to develop an approach to strike the right balance on these and other issues." He goes on to say, and this is the key: "It is not feasible at this time to add a section specifying decision-making procedures to the bill to be tabled for first reading. However, if an acceptable approach can be agreed upon soon enough, I would have no objections to considering adding it as an amendment at some point prior to third reading."
So the indication here from Mr Allen is that he certainly was most agreeable that the decision-making procedures could form part of the bill, and I guess I would ask you why has that not occurred. Why is the government still so intent on putting this into the regulations, since, certainly in this instance, Mr Allen seems to be quite willing to consider including it as an amendment prior to third reading?
Mr Gary Wilson: As I said in response to similar questions, Mrs Witmer, the idea is that the procedures for decision-making are essentially an operational matter and they can be addressed in the bylaws, partly because of the flexibility of them; that is, that as OTAB develops, that could be reflected in changing the bylaws more easily than legislation.
So again, as we see it, the role of the legislation is to lay out a general approach to the issue, leaving the specifics to the bylaws to be arrived at by the directors in consultation with the government.
Mrs Witmer: But you know, in this letter Mr Allen seems to believe that the process for decision-making could be resolved in the legislation, the bill that we're dealing with here. I guess I'm asking you, what has happened in the interim that now leads that not to be included at this point in time? I mean, why? Is it because of the change in ministers or what decision has been handed down? Was there no agreement reached or what's happened?
Mr Gary Wilson: No, the agreement we reached or the decision taken is that it's better to leave the exact mechanics to the bylaws rather than putting it into the legislation because that is too restrictive. Again, going over the approach to it, consensus being the first, some type of mediation to try to reach consensus, but as the last resort then having a voting mechanism that can be laid out in the bylaws.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I would ask you, do you believe that in the decision-making we're going to be looking at, in the regulations, a triple majority? Will that be the mechanism that we'll use?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, I think the suggestion laid out by Richard Allen in some of the correspondence we've heard is a suggestion that would be available to be used, but again it has to be done in consultation with the directors and again left to the bylaws.
Mrs Witmer: So at this time you can't really assure the public in Ontario that there will be a double majority or a triple majority or simply a simple majority?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think what can be assured is that the mechanism that we arrive at that will be laid out in the bylaws will be the one that the labour market partners agree on as being the best way of reaching decision-making.
Mrs Witmer: They haven't agreed on that yet then, you're saying?
Mr Gary Wilson: We've agreed that this is the way to proceed, to leave it to the bylaws, which can only be drawn up after the board is appointed.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Further discussion? All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate.
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Brown, Offer, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Vice-Chair: Those opposed?
Nays
Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Sutherland, Wilson, (Kingston and The Islands).
Ayes 4; nays 5.
The Vice-Chair: Shall section 12 of the bill carry? Those in favour.
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. It's a recorded vote. Agreed? Same vote recorded.
Mr Offer: Except reversed.
Mr Ramsay: That's right. We almost got that passed.
The Vice-Chair: We go to section 13 of the bill. Mr Ramsay, you have a motion.
Mr Ramsay: Yes. I think for expediency I will withdraw my amendment on section 13.
The Vice-Chair: The motion is withdrawn.
Mrs Witmer: And I will do likewise. I will withdraw my motion.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, you have a motion.
Mr Offer: Yes. I move that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Bylaws
"(1) The directors shall pass bylaws governing OTAB's procedure and governing the operations of the directors.
"Decision-making
"(2) A decision of the directors requires the approval of twelve directors, including,
"(a) five directors representing business;
"(b) five directors representing labour; and,
"(c) directors representing two other groups."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Mr Offer: I do. We have brought forward this motion and it was hoped that if Mr Ramsay's motions dealing with the number of directors on the board had been accepted, as well as his decision-making process, then this motion would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, the government members have voted down Mr Ramsay's amendments which dealt with adding three more directors to the board in the educator and training field and, as well, voted down his amendment dealing with the decision-making process which embraced the principles of democracy and majority rule. However, the government members have sought to vote against that and this motion is made as an attempt by our caucus to instil the wishes of the Minister of Skills Development.
1430
I think that we must be aware that the minister wrote a letter to the labour market partners February 2, 1993, and in that letter the minister wanted to assure people and in fact to "reach a level of clarity from which we can proceed." I will quote:
"In approaching this issue, we first wanted to establish principles. Before dealing with specific approaches it is important that we are clear on what we want this decision-making process to achieve. These principles are as follows:
That the governing body should seek to achieve consensus on decisions wherever possible.
That the leadership role of business and labour within OTAB should be acknowledged.
That any voting mechanism must maintain a meaningful role for the other (non-business/labour) members of the board.
That the voting mechanism should contribute to the development of subsequent consensus in a positive fashion."
The minister's letter--and this is, Chair, under signature of the minister--goes on to say:
"The approach which we feel best addresses all these principles is the following model:
"On any issue, the board will first endeavour to reach a consensus. A variety of approaches are available to assist in the consensus-building process. Whatever approach is taken, it must be clear that a genuine effort has been made to develop consensus and that sufficient time has been taken to give consensus a chance.
"There are other intermediate decision-making steps the board may wish to include in the process before taking an issue to a final vote."
These again are the words of the minister, and the minister goes on to say:
"Only where consensus cannot be achieved, and where any other intermediate steps have failed to yield an acceptable resolution, would an issue come to a final vote. For any motion to be confirmed in that vote, it would require the support of a majority of the full board (at least 12 of 22), including a majority of the business representatives (5 of 8), a majority of the labour representatives (5 of 8), plus a vote from each of at least two of the remaining five labour market partner groups. These are the requirements for an affirmation. Failure to meet any of these requirements would result in the defeat of the motion."
Those were the words of the minister of the crown, the person who was charged with the responsibility of seeing this bill move to legislation.
My amendment puts in legislative form the words of the minister around the issue of voting. The members of this committee, through our public hearing process, will be aware there is some concern, some discomfort over how this voting procedure may proceed. This amendment, if accepted, will deal with those concerns and deal with that issue. We cannot understand how the members of the government would be reluctant to insert in the legislation the words of their own minister. We recognize that this will provide a level of assurance to the people who are part of the board. We would rather have had Mr Ramsay's amendments accepted, but the government chose not to do so, and so we are left with this amendment which will provide a level of assurance to the members of the board that this matter, and matters that come before them after all chances for consensus and mediation have been exhausted, will regulate the procedure for voting.
The equity groups will see its place in the voting procedure, business will see its place in the voting procedure and labour will see its place. Members of the government should be well aware that anything else is totally unacceptable. You have presided over a health and safety agency which, because of that not being in place, is in a shambles. If you do not believe it, speak to the people who are no longer part of the health and safety agency in this province. This amendment will secure the voting procedure, after consensus attempts have been made, so that the board can deal with the matters and arrive at a solution.
You must be aware what the legacy of the health and safety agency has wrought on that group. There have been such hard feelings that the chance for consensus in the future is very difficult, if not impossible. In fact, this was one of the concerns that the minister had. The minister indicated that if this is followed, then chances for consensus on issues that follow the one before them will have a greater opportunity of success, and so I would expect that this amendment will be accepted. There would be a tremendous amount of suspicion if members of the government would not put in legislative form the written statement of their minister. You heard me indicate this morning that there would be tremendous concern and discomfort because people who want to be part of the agency and want to work towards consensus--and if necessary, mediation and if necessary, a vote--will be very suspicious that indeed these principles as espoused by the minister will be changed.
I believe we have a duty to all of those people, that government members who took part in this process trump it up all the time. I believe we, as a committee, have a responsibility to all of the people who came before this committee, to all of the people who took part in the much-heralded consultation process by the government. We have a responsibility to meet the concerns they have brought forward. If you do not, then this is a sham. You are not listening to the people; you are shutting the door in their face and you are not prepared to put in legislative form the words of your own minister. Remember this: Talk is cheap. Put it in the legislation. Let people have an assurance that what the minister said will be carried forward. Certainly, I would like to hear the response by the parliamentary assistant, as I am hopeful that he will send a message to his colleagues to accept this motion for amendment.
1440
Mr Gary Wilson: I think, Mr Offer, I hope you're going to hear a similar response to the same question that has been raised now in a couple of similar ways, that in undertaking to share responsibility for providing the training programs in Ontario, we are working with the labour market partners, and it seems to me that the measure of that is how the way OTAB operates is arrived at.
What is clearly assured here--and again I agree with you that the assurance is important, because when people came before this committee they were telling us they wanted to see the training programs or the way training is done in Ontario improved. That's what we're aiming to do through this sharing of responsibility, and part of that is in the operation of OTAB. It's clearly set out here that the bylaws will be established by the directors, and that will address how decision-making will be carried out.
The minister's letter lays out three steps to a decision-making, the most important being the consensus. Again, if the labour market partners are going to have a full role in this, then they are the ones expected to reach that consensus. The second step is the mediation procedure, that where consensus can't be reached there will be at least an attempt made to reach it. In the final analysis, when those two procedures don't work or no consensus can be reached, then a mechanism is set out that through the regulations everyone can be heard. The labour market partners will be heard in a vote.
But again, the basis of this is the participation of the directors, and that has to await the passage of the legislation.
Mr Offer: With the greatest respect, I think you're wrong. The regulations state that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the decision-making process followed at directors' meetings. That's the cabinet. They will make those decisions. The directors do have, through their bylaws, the power to make up some other things, but that one has been taken off the table. Cabinet will make that decision. There won't be a vote on that. I would like to get a clarification on that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm told that the clarification comes in subsection 30(2) about consultation, "Before a regulation is made under subsection (1), the minister shall consult with OTAB about it."
Mr Offer: You've made my point. Sure, "the minister shall consult with OTAB," and the simple response is, "So what?" Let's just put it to the test. The minister has decided that the decision-making process have be a particular form. The minister takes it to cabinet, that's the way it's approved, the minister says to the OTAB group, "This is the way it is," and the OTAB group says, "We don't like that." So what? You know what you've done? You've created the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You're created that which was destroyed just a scant five, six months ago.
It's clear: The directors of OTAB do not decide the decision-making process. That's been taken off the table for decision. That goes to cabinet. I don't care how many times you read this legislation backwards or forwards; I'm reading the bill that you gave to me and the fact of the matter is that the minister of the crown who's in change and responsible for this piece of legislation said that we're going to try to get consensus, we'll try to get mediation, and if we can't do that we'll have a vote and this is the way the vote should process. Hopefully, by having a voting regime like this, it will lead to consensus on other issues, on following issues.
You know what? I agree. I think that's right. Many people came before the committee and said, "This is needed--a double majority." Obviously the minister wrote to these people and said: "You know what? You're right, and this is the thing that's needed. We need clarity, we want consensus, we want mediation. Hopefully that will deal with the issue but if it isn't, we're not going to suffer the same fate as what happened to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. We'll have a vote, and this is how the vote's going to progress." That's what your own minister said. The board cannot make the decision as to the decision-making process. They can't. Your legislation says they can't. Your legislation took that issue off the table. How do you respond to your own legislation?
Mr Gary Wilson: Mr Offer, the legislation talks about consultation. These are labour market partners. The government is sharing the responsibility for training in Ontario, and if they're going to be treated as partners then they are going to have to have some part in designing the bylaws.
Mr Offer: What happens if the partners don't agree?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's a possibility.
Mr Offer: What's the process? They want the assurance. What's the process?
Mr Gary Wilson: Well, it's going to be set out in the bylaws.
Mr Offer: The minister has set out the process.
Mr Gary Wilson: The minister hasn't set out the process as far as the mediation goes, for instance.
Mr Offer: The minister has set out the process that in the event consensus and mediation don't work, this is the way it's going to be. If you don't accept this amendment, the people will rightfully say, "Bunch of baloney, this letter."
The minister, as we all know, is a man of integrity. Everybody believes in what the minister said. The minister would not have signed his name to this letter. I recognize that the minister is no longer the minister of this ministry, but I think there is a moral obligation to maintain the position of the minister who takes pride in this. I believe strongly that if that minister were the minister today, this bill would contain this amendment.
Mr Ramsay: We support the minister.
Mr Offer: We do support the minister, and there are people out there who say, "Yes, if you're going to have to deal with it, let's deal with it by consensus, by mediation and then let's have a vote."
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, please.
Mr Sutherland: I think a couple of points just need to be added here. In the letter, the minister does not state that he's going to put those principles directly in the legislation. He states that he's made a commitment to those principles, that he's aware of the concern and that there's a commitment to deal with the concern. I think that is an important thing to remember.
There is a process and Mr Wilson has reiterated what that process will be. A commitment has been made and people are aware of the concerns. The commitment was made by the minister to be aware of those concerns and deal with them. But I don't believe he said that he'd specifically put it in the OTAB legislation. He's made a commitment to those principles and he's made a commitment that consultation will go on with the board, and so by making that commitment he's saying: "Yes, this is the basis on how we're going to attempt to resolve them. It may be on a consensus basis, which the board is supposed to operate on." It may be on a consensus basis. The board may want to modify that. Of course, if you put it specifically in the legislation, the board won't be able to recommend any type of modification that it feels will work better.
Mr Offer: Sometimes I would have thought, Mr Sutherland, you might not have--what you just said is in Hansard. I can only say I am somewhat relieved that the Chair cannot read my mind at this time, because he would rule me unparliamentary and out of order. I cannot imagine that members of the government would not put in legislation the position of their own minister. It's absolutely shameful.
The Chair: But in fact, Mr Offer, I can read minds. It's a weighty responsibility. It's a gift that one must use with great care.
Mr Ramsay: Could you share it with the rest of us, Mr Chair?I just see a double X there.
1450
Mr Offer: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: There being no further debate, all those in favour of Mr Offer's motion, please raise your hands. Keep your hands raised until your name is called.
Ayes
Brown, Cunningham, Offer, Ramsay, Witmer.
The Chair: All opposed, please raise your hands. Keep your hands raised until your name is called.
Nays
Haeck, Huget, Malkowski, Martin, Sutherland, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands).
The Chair: Mr Offer's motion is defeated.
Mr Brown: Shocking.
Mr Martin: Don't be shocked; there's more to come.
Mr Brown: That doesn't surprise me.
The Chair: Addressing section 13 of the bill, is there any debate about or around section 13 of the bill? Shall section 13 carry? Those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 13 carries.
Addressing section 14 of the bill, shall section 14 of the bill carry? All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 14 of the bill carries.
We will now go to section 15 of the bill. Please, Mr Wilson or Mr Huget.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'll read it. I move that the French version of subsection 15(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "peuvent adopter" in the second line and substituting "adoptent."
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that?
Mr Gary Wilson: As we heard in the public presentations to the committee, this was not seen to be an exact translation of the English version. So we've made the changes to make the meaning of both versions similar.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Wilson's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Wilson's motion is carried.
Addressing now section 15, as amended. Yes, sir.
Mr Sutherland: I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for the vote.
The Chair: No. I was asking for debate. There being no debate around section 15, shall section 15, as amended, carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 15, as amended, carries.
Addressing section 16 of the bill, is there any debate or discussion around section 16 of the bill? Shall section 16 of the bill carry?
Mr Brown: One moment, Mr Chair, while I study section 16. It's rather a long section. I was wondering if the parliamentary assistant could indicate who establishes the salary of the chief executive officer. I haven't been able to read it quickly enough to know.
The Chair: Unanimous consent to set aside the vote on section 16? Thank you.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'll defer to Peter Landry to answer that.
Mr Landry: The chief executive officer is a civil service position, so the salary will be established consistent with similar senior positions in the Ontario public service.
Mr Brown: As I see, there's a deputy minister's salary grid. Is that what we're discussing?
Mr Landry: This position is not a deputy minister position; it will be a senior position. There is reference to having the authority of a deputy minister under the Public Service Act. That's not the same as being a deputy minister, so it would not be a deputy minister; it's probably more in the range of an assistant deputy minister.
Mr Brown: For a salary range, we're looking in the area of an assistant deputy minister, is that what I'm understanding?
Mr Landry: Yes, what is known as an SMG3 level range, because this is not an assistant deputy; it's part of an agency. But we are being consistent with government level salaries. I can't be more precise than that at this time.
Mr Brown: It is essentially just following the civil service salary grid.
Mr Landry: Yes. In fact, all the salaries of the agency will be following the civil service salary grid, because they're all civil servants.
The Chair: Shall section 16 of the bill carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 16 of the bill carries.
Section 17 of the bill: Will there be any discussion around section 17 of the bill? Shall section 17 of the bill carry? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 17 of the bill carries.
We are now addressing section 18 of the bill.
Mr Gary Wilson: I move that subsection 18(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Local training and adjustment boards
"(1) OTAB shall designate local training and adjustment boards that comply with the regulations made under this act."
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. During the public hearings, we were impressed by the enthusiasm and the commitment of many of the presenters in their support of local boards. We felt that the way it originally read, "OTAB may designate," even though it is suitable in a legalistic sense--because of the nature of the local boards, where they will be set up in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and the federal government--that it's something that can't be necessarily mandated. We felt, again because of the concern about local boards, that in this case we would change the "may" to "shall" to show our determination that the local boards will be set up in conjunction with the regulations or with regard to the regulations. We think this is a suitable amendment, and we are pleased to move it.
Mr Ramsay: I have to tell you that in opposition it could be tempting to ridicule you for changing your mind, but that would be speaking out of both sides of my mouth. There are maybe others in the committee who might want to ridicule you and are looking right now at your words from Hansard of the previous weeks. I won't do it because I agree with this motion; it echoes what I will be doing later on in a more complete amendment for all of section 18. I agree with this.
I will congratulate you for listening to the people there and to the pressure that I and all my colleagues brought forward with this in agreeing with those people and talking to the government to do this. This is the right thing to do, and I will be voting in favour.
Mr Offer: I too am in support.
Mr Sutherland: Be careful.
Mr Offer: Pardon me? I just am intrigued by some of the comments that were made primarily by Mr Sutherland and Mr Wilson during the public hearings, because this was brought forward by the opposition members countless times. People would come in and say, "The success of OTAB will be dependent upon how strong the local boards are." We said, "We think that's important." I remember the words I used, "the mandatory establishment of local boards in the legislation." I just took a quick look at one Hansard. Mr Kimble Sutherland stated on 26 January--
1500
Mr Brown: The member from Oxford.
Mr Offer: "We've stated many times, every time the opposition asked a question about local boards, that the legislation cannot have the local boards in it, because that has to be negotiated...It has to be established first before it does that."
I could indeed bring forward some quotes by Mr Wilson saying exactly the same thing on the same issue. As Mr Sutherland and Mr Wilson continually stated to those people who came before us that the local boards could not be established in the legislation, as they ridiculed the opposition for asking for the mandatory establishment of local boards in the legislation, I'm just wondering, for interest's sake, what happened?
Mr Gary Wilson: Perhaps just for clarification I should emphasize the last part of the section. I'll read the whole subsection, the whole paragraph. "OTAB shall designate local training and adjustment boards that comply with the regulations made under this act." It's not saying that they're being set out in the legislation; they're going to be established according to the regulations, and that's the significant part here. It's just that now we say that they will be designated.
The Chair: Mr Sutherland, do you want to add to that?
Mr Sutherland: Yes. I just want to add that I think Mr Wilson is on the right track with his comments in the sense that many in their presentations said they wanted to see the boards established within the legislation and see how the boards were going to operate within the legislation.
This amendment says that the opposition tried to portray that there'd be some great conspiracy not to establish any local boards whatsoever, or that was the impression they tried to leave. We want to be clear to people that the intent all along was to establish local boards; there was no conspiracy not to. The legislation to address that concern, we're still not setting out in the legislation how those local boards are going to be set up. That's going to be set up by regulation, as was indicated, once the negotiation process goes on.
So let's be quite clear: That is why the change is made, and how the local board operate is not in the legislation. But to clarify for anyone who may have had any doubts or may have been just greatly cynical that there is a great plot not to establish local boards, the wording has been changed from "may" to "shall."
Mr Offer: I've listened to the words of the parliamentary assistant and to Mr Sutherland on this issue, and your position on this matter is as if your favourite colour is plaid.
Mr Ramsay: Excuse us for a second while Mr Offer laughs at his own joke. He'll be recovering, I think, momentarily. He's the only one who got it. He has a very unique sense of humour; he's Scots.
Mr Offer: You can be certain that the comment which I've just made will find its way back into other debates later on. But the fact of the matter is that I'm a little concerned about the comment made by Mr Wilson. Are you going to be establishing local boards under the bill now or are you just saying we're going to do it, but by regulation? There is still a great deal of discussion over that taking place. I had some concern in terms of your response. I was very concerned over what Mr Sutherland said as he tried to justify a position that was diametrically opposed to his own position last week. I'd like to get a clarification on what "that comply with the regulations made under this act" means.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, are you going to respond to that?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I will. As we said in the public hearings, the setting up of the local boards--and this is based, of course, on the consultation carried out last year--will be done in conjunction with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. So in that sense, the regulations will set out how these boards will be set up, according to the boundaries and the composition etc.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Malkowski, please.
Mr Malkowski: I'm trying to follow the discussion about the concerns raised from the member for Mississauga North, but it seems the quote you identified--Kimble Sutherland--I don't know. You were laughing--this is a serious discussion. Was it a serious concern? Could you clarify for me, please?
Mr Offer: As the question was posed to me, let me be very clear, Mr Malkowski, as I've sat on this committee from its inception, that you should be aware that many people came into this committee and said, "This will fail if you do not have mandatory establishment of local boards, reflecting community needs." Mr Sutherland continued to say, "We can't put it in the legislation." It is in Hansard time and again. Mr Wilson said the same thing. Now we see this namby-pamby amendment, which does seem to move towards the inclusion of local boards mandatorily established in the legislation.
The fact of the matter is, Mr Malkowski, as we went through our hearings, every time any member of the opposition, be it the official opposition or third party, brought forward this concern, we were ridiculed by your government saying that was impossible, "If only you understood." The fact of the matter is, as it turns out, we did understand and this amendment bears fact to that. Far from being a funny matter, it is a serious matter at the heart of which lies the success or failure of this process, and the question we legitimately ask is: How come the government has changed position from that which they held just last week? What transpired between today and a week ago that we should be aware of? If they do not wish to comment, that's fine, but believe me, it was not a matter of any joking nature.
Mr Ramsay: Let's vote on it.
The Chair: There being no further debate on Mr Wilson's motion--yes, ma'am. There being only one other person--I misunderstood briefly--to debate Mr Wilson's motion, we will now hear from Mrs Cunningham, who is that other person.
Mrs Cunningham: This giant leap forward on behalf of the parliamentary assistant caused a great deal of excitement in the air. It's a good feeling to give and take, isn't it? You feel pretty good about getting your motions passed. We've had four amendments by the government now, all kinds of excitement. They'll be able to go out and say they amended the act now, I think. They listened and they amended the act, at least in three or four regards. That's great. I wish they would go out and say they had amended it on the advice of all of the members of the committee as opposed to their own good advice.
We certainly agree with this amendment and I can only say that I hope they will very seriously consider what we feel is the giant flaw in this whole section with regard to local training and adjustment boards, councils and reference committees: that, although they've agreed these should be mandatory by changing the word "may" to "shall," we also agree that there ought to be some direction in the act as to how they're set up and how they're constituted. I hope the parliamentary assistant and the members of the government opposite will give us some of their attention with regard to our amendments to section 18. It'd be nice to see them voting in favour of some of the items we're putting forth where we feel there's some change necessary.
But I must say, it's going to have to take some concentration. I understand the members of the government can concentrate on the changing of a word from "may" to "shall," but the next two amendments, as put forward by the government and by ourselves, will require a lot of concentration if they are serious about giving some thoughtful discussion. I would like to hear from the members opposite with regard to why they think some of the suggestions we made are good or could be improved upon, because any debate that goes on with regard to this now would have, I think, some input for the government with regard to some of the suggestions that may be made to it, with regard to regulations anyway. I think it's important that we all give the next amendments some serious consideration, no matter what happens. Notice my decreasing optimism and my creeping pessimism.
1510
The Chair: Your optimism is becoming feckless, that's apparent. All those in favour of Mr Wilson's motion please indicate. Opposed? Mr Wilson's motion carries.
Mr Gary Wilson: I move that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Role of OTAB
"(3.1) OTAB shall provide a broad policy and accountability framework for designated local training and adjustment boards."
Mr Ramsay: I don't have that.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't have that.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): I don't have any more copies here.
Interjection: It was handed out yesterday?
The Vice-Chair: Did you wish to speak to the motion, Mr Wilson?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. This is in response to one of the motions we think is a good suggestion.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't have it in English.
Mr Sutherland: Do you want my copy?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I do. I need somebody's.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I was saying, we think there's a reasonable--
Interjection: I didn't get a copy.
The Vice-Chair: Go ahead, Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: --idea that there be the policy set out for the local boards and that since it is public money, the accountability system be specified as well. So that, as I say, seems like a reasonable suggestion and we're happy to put it forward.
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, does it matter? I haven't had a lot of time to think about this, because I just saw it, but it does seem reasonable. Certainly, in the spirit of what we heard before the committee, we will be expanding on it and I expect, as I said before, that we would receive the same kind of positive response we've given you without having to go and ask any questions of the powers that be.
Mr Gary Wilson: I want to point out, Mrs Cunningham, that this is part of--
Mrs Cunningham: That's correct and I'm just wondering why you're putting it forward now, since ours is inclusive and we didn't deal with it piece by piece. I don't know how you want to deal with it, but if you're going to defeat ours, I think it would be a good idea to maybe deal with the whole thing and talk to why you think parts of it are good--at least get yourselves on the record--and then deal with yours.
Mr Gary Wilson: In fact, that's what we've done.
Mr Sutherland: No, I think the question is, should we be dealing with the PC amendment first or Mr Ramsay's amendment first, and then come back and deal with the government one, given the nature of--
Mrs Cunningham: It makes us think you're not going to take ours. Obviously, I can see how things are going and I would have been a lot more excited about this on day one, because I had hoped then--but I still think it's a matter of courtesy to take a look at the big picture and then pick a piece of it that you like and put it forward on your own behalf.
Mr Sutherland: What is your guidance, Mr Chair?
Mr Gary Wilson: I am going to speak for my colleague that we agree with that, Ms Cunningham, and certainly will stand ours down or withdraw it and--
Mr Sutherland: No, not withdraw it. We don't want to withdraw it, but stand it down. I was just wondering, because part of the amendment Mr Wilson proposed is incorporated in a much larger amendment that Ms Cunningham has put forward. I'm not sure if it's in Mr Ramsay's or not.
The Vice-Chair: Is there unanimous consent to stand down the government motion?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
The Vice-Chair: We'll then proceed to Mr Ramsay's motion.
Mr Ramsay: I appreciate the suggestion from my colleague Ms Cunningham that we maybe deal with the section as a whole. We can consider what the outcome is of that vote, then we can consider 18(3.1) in isolation.
I have decided to basically deal with section 18 comprehensively because it is a unit and I think it really comes down to the crux of this bill. If we are to ensure that OTAB is successful it is extremely important that instead of the sort of top-down organization the government has designed--
The Vice-Chair: Mr Ramsay, would you read your motion, please?
Mr Ramsay: I'm sorry. I move that section 18 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Local training and adjustment boards
"18(1) OTAB shall designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act.
"Area to be served
"(2) OTAB shall, in the designation of a local training and adjustment board, specify the area that it is to serve.
"Consultation
"(3) Before designating a local training and adjustment board, OTAB shall consult with the upper- and lower-tier municipalities in the area to be served and with any existing agencies that provide labour force development programs and services there.
"Notice
"(4) Notice of the designation shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be served.
"Appeal
"(5) An upper- or lower-tier municipality that disagrees with the designation of a local training and adjustment board or with the boundaries of the area to be served may appeal the matter to the executive council within sixty days of the publication of the notice.
"Powers and duties
"(6) Designated local training and adjustment boards shall promote, support, fund, coordinate and evaluate labour force development programs and services in the area to be served, on behalf of OTAB, and have the other powers and duties that are delegated to them by OTAB and that are assigned by the regulations.
"Same
"(7) Designated local training and adjustment boards are responsible to the directors in connection with the matters referred to in subsection (6).
"Funding
"(8) OTAB shall provide funding to designated local training and adjustment boards, in accordance with the regulations."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Do you now wish to speak to your motion?
Mr Ramsay: Returning, then, to subsection 18(1), this motion now has been adopted by the government. Again, I thank the government for making it mandatory for OTAB to designate local training and adjustment boards.
It is very important that for OTAB to be successful the designation of the local board be agreed upon by the people who will be the partners in that board.
Group after group came forward to our committee over the last three weeks to state that they did not want to be lumped together with other groups they didn't have a sense of community with; that they didn't want to have a local board area designated to them by Queen's Park or by the OTAB. They wanted to be able to decide on their own behalf which should be their area and they have done this for a couple of reasons. First of all, we're not really starting from scratch here. The federal government made an attempt--in some areas it has been successful and in some areas it hasn't been so successful--with their community industrial training committees. In some groups, these CITCs have worked very well and they've been able to get good cooperation from labour, for instance, and private trainers and all the different partners and in other areas various groups have decided not to be partners. But in those areas where those people, on a volunteer basis, I might add, have been working very hard on behalf of training working women and men in Ontario, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be able to work with those people and start with them as a nucleus for the new LTABs that will take their place.
1520
It's very important that we consult with the localities, now that we'd be in a position with the passage of this bill to start to set up the LTABs. I think the area to be served, number one, is very important, and who would be better to consult than the municipalities in the area, and of course those agencies I just have spoken about, and not only those particular agencies, but there are other training groups that came before us. Of the 179 people who came before us, many were regional training entities that had formed on their own and to this day are supplying very good training advice and sometimes even providing programs to their areas.
I think it's very important that there be a very thorough consultation before these are set up so that we will make sure that there's a community of interest that's been developed with these regions so it will work, because if we sort of have Queen's Park coming out and saying, "Hamilton, you're going to be working with Brantford and Haldimand-Norfolk," for example, a group that came before us felt that there wasn't any sort of commonality there. Then we're going to have difficulty. In some groups, some urban areas are going to dominate some rural areas, for instance. Some strong municipalities will dominate other weaker municipalities of a smaller size. So for this to get off the ground, it's very important that we make sure everybody's in agreement as to what the makeup is going to be. I think that's extremely important.
Again, in this legislation, as much in this legislation is, it is permissive rather than mandatory. So under notice this is why I have brought forward this amendment, the word "shall," in that, "Notice of the designation shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be served," should be there rather than "may" so that the general public understands what is happening.
I also think it's very important, if OTAB goes ahead with its other partners to designate the LTABs and there is disagreement at the local level, that there be an appeal mechanism. The legislation doesn't speak to any of this, and I think it's very important that not only is there consultation but, if there's disagreement in the end, at least there is some recourse for the municipalities. I've suggested in this amendment that the recourse be to the executive council of Ontario. I think it's important that within 60 days of the publication of this notice of the designation of the LTAB, those municipalities could go to the cabinet of the government of Ontario to appeal this decision.
I also think it's very important that the powers and duties be spelled out, because, again, the legislation is relatively silent on that, in that under powers and duties--and actually it does this in section 19--it only says, "The councils have the powers and duties that are delegated to them by OTAB and that are assigned by the regulations."
Many people have come before us and said that this is not good enough, that they want to have some certainty that not only are there going to be local boards--and we now have that certainty, as of today, with the passage of the government's amendment--but they want some certainty as to the makeup that I speak to here, and the area, but they also want some certainty as to what are going to be the powers and responsibilities--and that's why I have pointed those out here--and to make sure that these are mandatory in the legislation.
I think it's important that the designated local boards and the training and adjustment boards shall be in the same position locally that OTAB is provincially, and that is that they shall promote, support, fund, coordinate and evaluate labour force development programs at the local level. I think it's important to make that clear, that OTAB will be delegating its provincial responsibility locally, and not that the provincial body, the OTAB, is going to be really doing this at the local level and somehow the LTAB is just going to be some sort of rubber-stamp mechanism.
I hope the government's intention is that it be a grass-roots operation and these LTABs really have some power, but if we rely just upon the establishment of regulation for that, we can't be certain. Therefore, that's why I want to move that in the bill so we can all be certain and all the partners can be certain, the general public can be certain, that, yes, OTAB, once it becomes established, will be delegating those authorities to those local training and adjustment boards so the people at the local level will have a say. In a sense, what I want to do here is enshrine the local empowerment that I hope's the intention of the government, but until we see it in the legislation, we won't be sure. To me, that is a real problem.
Lastly, what I'm asking here with the change that I have under funding is that funding, again, shall be provided. I want to ensure that funding will be transferred from OTAB to the local training and adjustment boards. Again, I'd like some certainty. The government has agreed that there will be certainty as to the establishment of those boards. Certainly we could ask, if you want those boards to be effective, that the government then shall provide the funding, rather than may provide the funding. Then we will know that the local boards will have the resources to carry out the work we all want them to do. Thank you very much, Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Wilson.
Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you, Mr Ramsay, for these suggestions that you've elaborated on as far as your amendment to section 18 goes. Again, I have to come back to the idea that the OTAB cannot designate these boards on its own, it has to be done in consultation with the federal government, the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, and the provincial government, and that this will be done through the regulations. The design of the local boards will be done through the regulations, which of course requires OTAB to be in place before that process can be carried out.
On some of your specific suggestions, for instance under appeal, an appeal process exists now that any municipality is free to appeal to the minister responsible for OTAB, if it finds something it disagrees with, and that appeal can be carried out through the government part of the responsibility for OTAB. So that is a very direct process. Again, the powers and duties of OTAB can't take that on by itself; it's got to be done in consultation with the federal part of the program.
Again, we certainly heard in the public hearings and through the consultation that was carried out last year on the local boards that there is a lot of interest, a lot of commitment that these boards work. That is part of the reason we changed the wording to say that those boards will exist and that it has to be set out that they'll exist in the legislation and then the exact design of them has to come through the regulations, again in conjunction with the federal government and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Wilson, what I don't understand is that up until last week you used the same argument against why we could not put it in the bill that OTAB had to designate the local boards because this had to be done, as you say, and I believe you, in consultation with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. But this week you changed your mind and said: "Well, we could put that in the legislation. We could mandate the establishment of the LTAB." I'm saying to you that if now we can do that, why can't we also mandate the powers and the duties? If the powers and the duties are going to reflect the powers and duties of OTAB and there's agreement between the federal and provincial government as to this, then why can't we put that in the act?
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, the proposed design, as we see it, will be done in conjunction with the federal government and its advisory body. In that sense, we can't designate powers and duties that have to be designed through consultation with the federal government.
Mr Ramsay: But don't you see that by omitting this from the bill you cause a lot of uncertainty out there as to how much clout, if you will, the LTABs will have? If you just take a look at your legislation in isolation, with all the background papers that have been developed and the discussions and the consultations, it looks like a very top-down instrument, this OTAB, because there's no certainty there that there will be very strong and effective and funded local agencies with some very broad powers and duties. That's all I'm asking, that what your intention is--not any other intention, but what your intention is--just be spelled out in the act.
1530
Mr Gary Wilson: Certainly we are, again, setting up a partnership here that we think exists not only among the labour market partners but also between the province and the local areas. The minister said that the whole purpose of being very sensitive to community needs is to get away from the cookie cutter approach, that we want to make sure that the local boards reflect the community complexion or characteristics.
I should remind you that the CITCs, which you've praised, to some extent at least, exist now completely free of any legislation or regulation. They are in effect just a program, whereas our view of this is that by setting out very carefully what's in the legislation and then leaving for the regulations, in a very consultative and responsible way, the design of the local boards, we are setting up the best foundation possible so that these will reflect the makeup of the community and then do their jobs as far as being responsive to the special needs of the communities.
Mr Ramsay: Your answer now is starting to give me some concern when you keep saying that this has to be done in cooperation with the federal government, with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. Is there not agreement today that this structure is accepted by both the province and the federal government and this will happen between the province and the federal government? Hasn't that agreement between the two levels of government been reached already, that this is what's going to happen?
Mr Gary Wilson: Certainly we're expecting agreement, but until OTAB is set up, then we just can't move forward with the consultation that has to take place.
Mr Ramsay: Just one last question, Chair. It just seems to me that, wouldn't it be good to have something written in our legislation that shows what Ontario's position is so at least the people on the provincial side, and looking to the province to be a leader in consolidating training and adjustment, will have some certainty that it's here, that the direction of the government is clear because it's actually spelled out as to what it believes the powers and duties should be?
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the direction is very clearly there. The agreement exists between the provincial and the federal government. It's shown in part by the consultation that took place over the local boards. What we have to work out now are the details. We can't do that until OTAB is in place.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion is defeated. Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Which one would you like me to do?
The Chair: Ms Witmer moves that section 18 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Local training and adjustment boards
"18(1) OTAB shall, after consultation with Employment and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act.
"Composition and operation
"(2) In decisions about the composition and operation of a designated local training and adjustment board, the following shall be taken into account:
"1. The wishes and needs of the local community.
"2. The desirability of incorporating existing entities, such as community industrial training committees, that provide labour force development programs and services.
"3. The desirability of incorporating existing sectoral agreements that deal with labour force development.
"Role of OTAB
"(3) OTAB shall establish a broad policy and accountability framework for designated local training and adjustment boards and shall provide them with information about labour markets, existing services and provincial economic and social policies.
"Role of local boards
"(4) Designated local training and adjustment boards are responsible for meeting the training and adjustment needs of the persons who live in the areas the boards are to serve.
"Same
"(5) Designated local training and adjustment boards have the powers and duties that are delegated to them by OTAB and that are assigned by the regulations.
"Same
"(6) Designated local training and adjustment boards are responsible to the directors in connection with the powers and duties delegated by OTAB or assigned by the regulations.
"Annual report and plan
"(7) Each designated local training and adjustment board shall, annually before the end of its fiscal year, submit to OTAB for review and approval,
"(a) a report outlining the labour force development outcomes achieved during the year; and
"(b) a plan for the next year's operations.
"Funding
"(8) OTAB may provide funding to designated local training and adjustment boards, in accordance with the regulations."
So moved by Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Yes. This amendment is intended to clarify the relationship between OTAB and the local boards and to ensure that the composition and the operation of the local boards are local responsibilities. As we well know, having sat on the committee and listened to the presentations, this is something that many of the presenters were asking to happen, that that relationship indeed be clarified regarding the composition and the operation, and of course they were looking for as much local autonomy as possible.
At the present time, Bill 96 is very ambiguous on the issue of local boards and how they will operate. That certainly was a grave concern to many of the presenters who appeared before us the past three weeks. There was a very strong feeling that Ontario's training programs must be locally driven. Presentation after presentation consistently stated that fact, that local boards must be allowed to be active and effective in responding to local training needs while OTAB provides a broad policy and accountability framework. They emphasized to us the need for this structure to be grass-roots rather than top-down, and we've heard that from both employees and employers.
This amendment, then, does provide for local empowerment. Decisions about the composition and the operation of local boards will take into account local wishes and will incorporate existing structures such as the CITCs. We all know that in many communities the local, existing structure, the CITC, has done an absolutely outstanding job as far as taking into consideration what the local needs are and putting in place programs that would respond to those local wishes. There has been a great deal of cooperation.
OTAB will provide a policy, an accountability framework, and provide local boards with information about labour markets and existing services. Local boards, on the other hand, we are suggesting, need to be directly responsible for meeting the needs of the people they serve in their local community. They then will report annually to OTAB on training outcomes achieved and finances.
The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto stated: "There is not enough emphasis enshrined in the bill regarding empowered, effective, client-driven local boards. It is important to recognize training as a local decision. Individuals or employers will not become committed because a centralized body called OTAB is created. Rather, it is involvement of local people and decision-making at the local level, combined with accessibility and responsiveness of the training services provided, which stimulates a personal and collective belief, commitment and action towards workplace training. The whole concept of OTAB and its eventual success will depend on how effectively local programs are delivered."
That was certainly a viewpoint that was shared by many, many others, and it's for this reason that we put forward this amendment today to clarify the relationship between OTAB and the local boards and the composition and the operation and that we stress to you the need for this to be a local responsibility.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, please.
Mrs Cunningham: Since the parliamentary assistant seems to be interested, I'd like to go through the sections with you, because a lot of them incorporate what you already have in the act. There are a couple of additions here, one of which I think you have put in an amendment yourself. So actually, we're not far apart on this.
I think it's the intent, as a result of the public hearings, that we expand upon just what we want in the area of local training and adjustment boards, some kind of a definition. The reason we did this, quite frankly, was to be helpful because of what was being stated by the members of the government at the beginning of the deliberations. That was the importance here of Employment and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
1540
I'm not sure you'll remember when I challenged, after a period of a couple of days of public consultation, the role of at least the member for Oxford, who kept saying: "We can't do any of this stuff without the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. They've given us our direction, it's in consultation with them, and after reviewing the Hansards we thought we had better make some reference to them in the act." I notice you haven't done that, but that's why we did it. It wasn't that we felt it was that important, but it certainly seemed important to the government. I think everybody will agree that that was what was stated in the first week over and over again.
Finally, I made a contact with the minister's office and they described to us what they felt the basic principles of the local boards ought to be, and I think there was a consensus within the committee that we certainly felt the same way. The fact that they underlined the basic principles--and we had been hearing it from the public all along--I think was very helpful, and that was that they were not married to the formula either of the OTAB board itself or of the committees, the 6-6-4-2 formula; that that could be changed and that it is up to the government of Ontario to take a look at that makeup; that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board felt that the local boards indeed should have control over local dollars to a certain extent.
I did ask the question, and I'll thank the government for responding to the question, how will local boards be funded? I very much appreciated the response I did get. I thought it was inclusive and it certainly clarified the matter for myself. Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs Cunningham: Beg pardon? No, I'm just starting. Did you say thank you?
The Chair: Yes. There will be a recess for 10 minutes.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, all right.
The committee recessed at 1542 and resumed at 1607.
The Chair: We've had a quorum in the most technical sense for the last 10 minutes or so, but we will wait until the Conservative caucus is represented.
The committee recessed at 1607 and resumed at 1615.
The Chair: It's 4:15 and we shall continue to wait for a representative from the Conservative caucus.
[Later]
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, you had the floor.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I think the parliamentary assistant and I were focusing when you called a break. It's going to be hard to get our focus back, isn't it?
Mr Sutherland: Some would state that it's been hard to get the focus all along.
Mrs Cunningham: You're beginning to sound like myself, the member for Oxford.
Mr Sutherland: Should I take that as a compliment?
Mrs Cunningham: No. I wasn't being complimentary to myself. I have that problem from time to time. I have a lot to do. It's hard to focus. However, I'm getting focused here.
I was talking with regard to the composition and operation of the local training boards. Actually, I'm glad the member for Oxford is here, because I was mentioning his name before the break when he wasn't in the room. I was saying that there was a lot said about the importance of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and how I think in the beginning it was stated that we were rather beholden to it in this legislation. I really think that wasn't quite correct. However, there was an impression made upon me, especially by the member for Oxford, of its importance and of the importance that we work with it very carefully, and with Employment and Immigration Canada. We actually put this into the legislation because we felt it was almost a necessity given the presentation from time to time by the members of the government.
I'll just very quickly follow through with the four basic principles. I've already mentioned that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and Employment and Immigration Canada were not married to the formulas we established for our own--what do you call them, Mr Wilson, not local boards but the boards that advise OTAB?
Mr Gary Wilson: LTABs?
Mrs Cunningham: The reference boards or reference councils.
Mr Huget: Reference committees.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, committees, whatever. You know what I mean.
The local boards should have responsibilities for their own budgets--these are the basic principles--and the representation on the local boards should be grass-roots, bottom-fed. Members should be appointed locally and, wherever possible, other training boards that have been doing a good job and have been hooked into the training structure of communities, those members should be seriously considered, if not simply appointed to the local training boards. I've put that on the record before.
1620
Given all of those principles and given the Hansards as we read them--the emphasis by the government on the Canadian Labour Force Development Board--we put in section 1:
"OTAB shall, after consultation with Employment and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, designate local training and adjustment boards that have been established in accordance with the regulations made under this act."
The government has already agreed with us that it should be "shall" as opposed to "may."
We've expanded upon it. In the composition and operation, we talk about the priorities there. Actually, we've tried not to be too inclusive but to give general direction: The wishes and needs of a local community should be the first priority; the desirability of incorporating existing entities, such as community industrial training committees that provide labour force development programs and services--existing services that are there now ought to be incorporated--and the desirability of incorporating existing sectoral agreements that deal with labour force development.
This issue was raised many times, especially with regard to community-based and private trainers in relationship to the colleges. I think one of the issues that was brought to our attention along the way was the difficulty and the time-consuming challenge it has been for colleges to work through these sectoral agreements with school boards and others. It has been tremendously time-consuming. Certainly, in the composition and operation, anybody who has been involved in these sectoral agreements and can represent the work that's been done should be on these local training boards. That certainly was indicated to us by a number of presenters.
The role of OTAB: I think the government agrees with us in that regard so I won't speak to that to any extent. The role of the local boards is exactly the same as the government. Subsection 18(5), the designation is the same as what the government has in the bill now. Subsection (6) is also the same as what the government has now.
We have added subsections (7) and (8) with regard to an annual report and plan. This was a suggestion made by a number of people with regard to the accountability of this board:
"Each designated local training and adjustment board shall, annually before the end of its fiscal year, submit to OTAB for review and approval,
"(a) a report outlining the labour force development outcomes achieved during the year; and
"(b) a plan for the next year's operations."
I think everyone would agree that one of the great criticisms of the public with regard to public institutions is our lack of accountability. We've attempted to deal with that here. I think it's interesting that we have asked that the report outline the outcomes achieved. That's one thing that's been missing in training.
I know the parliamentary assistant would agree with me that it has been a very difficult job to measure the number of apprenticeship programs that have been entered into and the number of apprentices who have successfully graduated, the persons who began in those courses. I really feel that anybody who has been involved with the Ministry of Skills Development will know the challenges around this. We are making certain that this be part of an annual report so that we can improve upon any accomplishments and any suggestions from local board to local board.
"Funding
"(8) OTAB may provide funding to designated local training and adjustment boards, in accordance with the regulations."
This is simply a reassurance that local boards will receive training dollars. It is certainly consistent with the response to our question, how will local boards be funded?
That's what we've put forward with regards to one of the more important areas of this legislation--local training and adjustment boards. We've tried to put forward, I think, the best advice we could get in a very broad framework.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm pleased to comment on the elaboration of Ms Cunningham's motion, which she's already mentioned that we've adopted part of in an amendment of our own. But I certainly agree with her about the importance of the local training and adjustment boards. That was certainly what came through in the hearings: the enthusiasm, the commitment and the concern of local people that these things do the job that they're expected to do in the OTAB legislation.
On some of the specific points you've raised under subsection 18(1), in your proposal, for instance, you suggest that we mention the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, as we did refer to it in the hearings. In fact, it is listed among the objects in paragraph 4(1)7; it's listed there with other organizations that deal with labour force development so we will have the broad cross-section of views we can exchange with other agencies and organizations that deal with training.
Also, as to the composition and operation, the wishes and needs of the local community will certainly be taken into account. As to the community industrial training committees, we have heard that they have been a popular item in some communities. They've had, though, based on what we heard in the committee hearings, a mixed record, that in some places they worked well and other places they didn't work so well. As I mentioned earlier, they were operating completely without any regulations or legislation, just as a program. What we want to keep from the CITCs, where they worked well, is that record of commitment of the volunteers who worked on them; that idea that there are many people in a community who can volunteer their expertise and their time to make training programs work.
The other thing we're trying to do here is very thoroughly lay out legislation and regulations so that the local boards will exist in a structure in which we can make sure there is some accountability--which of course you also mention--in how they operate, to make sure that they do meet the wishes and needs of the local community; again with the idea that we don't see local boards as being a cookie cutter, but that they will reflect the characteristics and makeup of the areas they represent. We're doing this, though, because we think it is going beyond the CITCs to be more representative and, in that way, more effective in the role we're assigning them.
As I mentioned, we're certainly adopting the accountability; we think that's an important element. Some of the mechanisms that would be worked out, though, as far as they're concerned, would come through the regulations and are of an operational nature that doesn't have to be listed in legislation. We think that by adopting your suggestion of the mention of accountability, as we have in our amendment, we are certainly making that clear that there will be an accountability mechanism of some kind established.
The way we've handled the local boards, by saying they will be set up through the legislation but leaving the actual description of them to the regulations, which will be established in consultation with the federal government, and then the operation through a similar way, they will best serve their function by having that flexibility but still grounded in the legislation and the regulations.
Mrs Cunningham: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant. I'm aware that paragraph 4(1)7 refers to the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. You just mentioned that it was important to confer with Employment and Immigration Canada; I think I heard you say that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I said the federal government, I think.
1630
Mrs Cunningham: I'm just wondering where you see the federal government in the bill right now, or Employment and Immigration Canada, one or the other.
Mr Gary Wilson: You mean the reference to the federal government? You see the reference to--
Mrs Cunningham: It might be there. I just don't see it. You've satisfied me with regard to the Canadian Labour Force Development Board.
Mr Gary Wilson: Legal counsel has pointed out section 29, to show that agreements can be entered into between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada. But the more pertinent section is under the objects.
Mrs Cunningham: It just proves that there's a bit of inconsistency here with regard to whom we talk to. But I don't want to hold anybody up in that regard.
Also, I'll remind you that although in two sections of this bill you're talking about OTAB itself establishing links with the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and, further on, the Canadian government and the Lieutenant Governor--that's fine, but I'm wondering what you have to say about the idea with regard to local training and adjustment boards.
Mr Gary Wilson: Sorry?
Mrs Cunningham: In the designation of the membership of the local training and adjustment boards. That's what we're referring to, not just as the objects, although I'm appreciative of the fact that it's been recognized. I'm thinking it would be important to consult with Employment and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Labour Force Development Board before they designate their local training and adjustment boards. Was that the intent of the object with regard to the Canadian Labour Force Development Board? Is that one of the intentions?
Mr Gary Wilson: Intentions of the local--
Mrs Cunningham: No, within the objects of the act, that this consultation take place around the designation of the local boards. Is that what you intended under section 4?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes. It's not just restricted to that, but that is one of the--
Mrs Cunningham: I know it's not restricted. I'm just saying, is that one of the intents?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mrs Cunningham: I didn't hear you talk about the annual report and plan. I'd like you to respond to that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I included that under the accountability that we are adopting from your suggestion and in our own amendment. That that is something, though, that's operational and can be worked into the regulations for the operation of the local boards.
Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask you if you're going to consider an annual report and plan as part of that framework of accountability?
Mr Gary Wilson: It's a reasonable suggestion. There are certainly other reports, as you know, from the accountability of OTAB itself, so it's consistent with that kind of accountability that's already there.
Mrs Cunningham: No, let's not mix it up. I actually think you're agreeing with me, but let's not mix it up. I understand that OTAB will have to make an annual report. They're only going to have $600 million to account for, so I expect to see that in an annual report at least. But I'm wondering, because these boards are appointed, even though the principals there will be paid, if an annual plan and also a plan for the next year's operations will be part of your thinking for those boards, even though you don't want to put it in this format.
Mr Gary Wilson: Exactly. I agree with you, Ms Cunningham. As I say, the accountability is in the legislation, and that would be something suitable to the regulations.
Mrs Cunningham: What about the funding part, section 8? You didn't speak to that specifically. It's a "may"; it probably should be a "shall." Is that your intent, that you're going to put that somewhere else?
Mr Gary Wilson: It is under subsection 18(4) already.
Mrs Cunningham: Is that one we just picked up on, then?
Interjection: I think she just moved it in the motion they picked up.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm sorry. I thought I had seen it somewhere. It was much too recent for me to remember: short-term memory.
Mr Chairman, I've asked the questions I need to ask.
Mr Sutherland: If I could just add a couple of comments to this discussion, throughout this debate and discussion on this legislation, the opposition has asked for a lot of suggestions to be put right in the legislation. With regard to Ms Cunningham's motion, re, a lot of the ideas she's put forward--likewise with a lot of the ideas in Mr Ramsay's motion--are very good suggestions. They've been put forward, they're in Hansard, and obviously, the types of mechanisms they propose will be taken into consideration. I would hope that serious consideration will be given to them in terms of the processes that will eventually be set up for the local boards. If someone were to look at the Hansard of this committee at some point, they're going to try to think that the government has been intransigent and unwilling to be flexible in terms of how these issues are resolved, and I think it needs to be clearly stated that that's not necessarily the case.
Where a lot of the difference is coming forward is over the question of whether it needs to go in the actual legislation to resolve it or whether it will be resolved in terms of the operations, the regulations, how the consultation process will end up. I think that is a very important point that needs to be mentioned. People need to be aware that, on many of the points the opposition is raising, because they're not agreed to doesn't mean they're going to be totally ignored in how the final operation of the OTAB board sets up and how the local boards will be operating and the type of accountability process that may exist.
Mrs Cunningham: I certainly appreciate the comments made by the member for Oxford. I just have a sort of underlying suggestion that has permeated these hearings from the very beginning: the challenge that all of us had in advising the government with regard to what the public said.
Most of the uncertainty in this legislation will be dealt with in the regulations, we're told. Even the basic principles the parliamentary assistant and I have just discussed around the makeup of local boards--that's just one small part--obviously they have given some serious consideration to. And they have made up their minds that certain principles we've discussed, as put forward in the amendments of both the Liberal critic and myself, have been considered by the government, and we've been assured that they're being considered as part of the regulations.
Do you know what I would have appreciated? I would have appreciated at least a list of some of the key areas of concern: the makeup of the local boards, perhaps; some of the roles of the local boards; the annual report and plan of the local boards. We've just discussed them; I'm being very specific. It would have been very helpful for all of us if the government had provided us with at least some kind of an outline as to what would appear in the regulations, and it would have been very helpful to the citizens if they knew that. I wouldn't have expected all of that to happen at the beginning of this week, but I would have expected some of it to happen by today.
It's been a long week and we didn't allow ourselves a lot of time between Thursday--the conclusion of our public input--and Monday afternoon before we had to have our amendments brought forward. I have seen, I think, one or two new ones--one new one--from the government since we started on Monday, but I'm just saying that it's this kind of frustration that all of us feel. I would have thought the government would have had an opportunity here to be a step above us in this regard, if in fact they have already considered the points that we've been making.
1640
We obviously, because of the answers to the questions, didn't take a strong view with the parliamentary assistant on this one. We preferred it in the legislation, but he responded that they were being considered for the regulations. But where they cannot be considered for regulations and where there has been an intransigence on behalf of the government, which there has been for the majority of the regulations, we will be speaking to that down the road, and especially where we've asked a question where any member of this committee has not responded.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am. All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please raise your hand. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Now, with unanimous consent, we will stand aside--let's first deal, of course, with section 18. There was a motion made dealing with section 18(3.1). Mr Wilson, did you move that motion?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes, I did. Do you want me to move it again?
The Chair: Mr Wilson moved that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Role of OTAB
"(3.1) OTAB shall provide a broad policy and accountability framework for designated local training and adjustment boards."
That was your motion?
Mr Gary Wilson: It is.
The Chair: That remains outstanding because that was stood down by way of unanimous consent. There's no further discussion on this motion? Thank you. All those in favour?
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, could you say the number again, please?
The Chair: It's the motion that creates subsection (3.1).
Mrs Cunningham: The one that we--okay, fine. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was correct, especially if I was going to be voting with the government.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Wilson's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Wilson's motion carries.
Now, Ms Cunningham, you have a motion?
Ms Cunningham moves that subsection 18(4) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
Correct? Thank you. Do you want to speak to that?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I do. With regard to the change here, we're basically changing a "may" to a "shall." I think the government did the same thing earlier. So I think there would be a great deal of confidence in this legislation on behalf of the presenters if in fact the government could reassure us in the bill that the councils, as subcommittees of the board of directors, the ones I was trying to describe earlier with the assistance of my colleague--it seems to me that the presenters really put a lot of faith in those councils. I'm just interested in how the government feels, because they are the ones here who have made it permissive, and there may be a good reason for that. If there's a good reason for it, I could be persuaded, but I can tell you that there seems to be a lot of weight put on these councils.
Everybody who couldn't get on the OTAB board itself talked about the clout they would have and the opportunities they would have on the council. So although we've defeated them on the board and said they couldn't be there, boy, could you imagine going back to the education sector and what not and saying this is a permissive piece of legislation, especially in light of the other change that you made? So I would hope that you would give this some serious consideration, because I think it's parallel to the change that you felt was necessary as well.
Mr Gary Wilson: Our difficulty with it, though, Ms Cunningham, is that it's to retain some discretion over what kinds of boards are set up. We feel that we just want to list it as enabling rather than a duty. That's why the "may" appears rather than "shall."
Mrs Cunningham: I'm not going to take a lot of time in responding to that except to say that is the very fear we had and that's why we put it forward. You can call council or subcommittees anything you like as long as you can assure the presenters who have not won the kind of representation on the OTAB board itself--and I'm being very specific here: education. You're going to have to do something about that. There will be another opportunity for you. You may have to take this back to the minister, but I can assure you that it's a very serious issue. I would not have guessed it such, but I felt very strongly about the makeup of the OTAB board, and if we're now saying to educators that the education steering committee or the subcommittee won't receive the kind of consideration that they were planning on--
Mr Gary Wilson: I don't think we're talking about the same thing, Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Maybe we're not, then. Correct me.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'm looking at the funding to the local boards. You seem to be referring to the--
Mrs Cunningham: I'm looking at 19(1).
Mr Gary Wilson: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, well, the one we're working on is 18(4). Have we got that wrong, Mr Chair?
Mr Sutherland: We're on 18.
Mr Offer: Subsection 18(4).
The Chair: But do basically the same arguments apply?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cunningham. Mr Wilson, your position is that you disagree? Thank you.
Mr Gary Wilson: I'd like to deal with one at a time, please, just to be thorough. For subsection 18(4), that's the argument, but perhaps Ms Cunningham has a different argument.
Mrs Cunningham: Let me just look back at this. Actually, Mr Chair, you're very observant. It's exactly the same issue and it actually is in response to the question, "How will local boards be funded?" It seemed to me that there was a pretty well established fact that the local boards will have some of their own funding, given what you stated here. That's why we put the amendment forward, to assure them that they will. So both for 18(4) and 19(1), it's consistent with the amendment that you made under--
Mr Gary Wilson: Subsection 18(1).
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. You reassured the community by saying that in fact you would designate local training and adjustment boards, or "shall."
When the member for Oxford was speaking to this, I didn't see that there was any real fearmongering on behalf of anybody around that issue. I know you said that you thought there was, but I didn't. I just thought we should really say that this is a permanent part of the structure and a very important part, and not permissive, the local training boards.
I think our amendment to 18(4), given your answer to our question which led us to make the amendment--I think it's that kind of confidence that they need on the funding as well. That's all.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think our response comes out of the accountability that actually you raised and we've adopted; that is, for the government to be accountable to the public, because it's public money, after all. We want to make sure that the boards are doing the job they are set out to do, and in that sense, the money has to be discretionary. In other words, they get the money only if they are fulfilling the mandate that's set out in the regulations.
Then, going into 19(1), where the councils are, it's the same idea. If the councils aren't working out the way they should, we should have the ability to make changes so that they will do the job. But again, the reason for putting them there is to make sure that the widest consultation--I guess we've drawn the widest experience possible, which is what the idea of the councils is, to set up according to the various components of training to make sure that we canvass the views of the people who are involved in that.
Mrs Cunningham: Again, Mr Chairman, I think if all of us had seen the regulations with regard to the funding or with regard to the councils, it would have been easier for me to deal with this section. I am bringing forth the concerns as I heard them in the public hearings, and that's why I put forward the amendment. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
1650
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs Cunningham's motion is to amend subsection 18(4) of the bill by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting the word "shall."
All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
There is now, I understand, a need to deal with section 18, as amended. Any further discussion around section 18 of the bill, as amended? Shall section 18 of the bill, as amended, carry? Those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Section 18, as amended, carries.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Sutherland didn't have his hand up very high. It was a tie vote, but--
You noticed that, didn't you, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: It is proposed that we deal with--I kept a careful notice of hands. Is there unanimous consent to proceed now to section 30 of the bill? Thank you very much. Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Kormos. It's my understanding that there may be one word change, difference, that would possibly allow the government to support my amendment, which is subsection 30(3). I will read my motion into the record.
I move that section 30 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Community diversity
"(3) When a regulation is made under clause (1)(c), the importance of reflecting, in the composition of local training and adjustment boards, the diversity of the communities they are to serve shall be recognized."
The Chair: You're moving that subsection be added to section 30?
Mr Ramsay: That's correct, yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. I think if there was any point brought home by the over 179 different delegations that submitted presentations either orally or in writing, there was a sense that if OTAB is to work, there couldn't be, as the parliamentary assistant has said, a cookie cutter approach with regard to imposing a Queen's Park formula on the LTABs, but that the local boards had to be able to form themselves, obviously with guidance from OTAB, but to reflect in their composition the diversity of their communities. I think this is very important because, as we've all understood from other legislation, Ontario is an extremely diverse province. We have very different populations living in very different regions of our province, and it's so difficult to pass legislation--it is maybe the right solution for Toronto, but maybe not for Kenora etc. I think there needs to be flexibility, and that's why I've moved this motion. I would hope the government would be able to support this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Malkowski, please.
Mr Malkowski: It sounds like it would make sense to support this to reflect the diversity of the community and I think that I would ask other government members to consider supporting this as well.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Wilson, please.
Mr Gary Wilson: As Mr Ramsay has pointed out, there was certainly a lot of discussion about the composition of the local boards among the presenters and the submissions to our committee. I think that's what is very encouraging, in fact. And we know, again from the experience of some of the communities, that they've already been able to set up something that does begin at least to reflect the characteristics of the local area. So it is, I think, a good idea to set it out in this way, to suggest that this is what we are trying to do, to get away from what Richard Allen actually referred to as a cookie cutter approach, that the local boards have to reflect the local community, but also tie in--I think, again, diversity is something that has to be dealt with, but again it's where we derive our strength. It helps that the more completely the boards represent the local characteristics, then the better feel we'll have for what is necessary in communities. We're pleased to support this motion.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion carries.
Mrs Cunningham: God, that must have been painful for the government.
Mr Sutherland: No, it's not painful.
Mrs Cunningham: Maybe not, under the circumstances. Maybe I should have put "Government motion" on mine. Could we please put that in the Hansard? I'll say it again for Hansard. Maybe I should have written "Government motion" on mine and stroked it out and there might have been a whole--
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, you have a motion.
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: Listen, when Kimble Sutherland, the member for Oxford, grows up he will be a Conservative. I've told him that since the first day I met him.
Mr Gary Wilson: You're going to live to 150, are you?
The Chair: Do you want to withdraw your most recent motion or do you want to not move it?
Mr Ramsay: I will withdraw them because that was only housekeeping in order to be consistent with previous amendments I've moved that have been defeated, so I can withdraw those.
The Chair: You are not going to be moving that motion. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: We're back to section 19, are we?
The Chair: In view of your support for Mr Ramsay's motion, you have a motion which would strike out clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 30(1). Just as Mr Ramsay declined to move his, you're going to decline to move that.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I think I did make a note.
The Chair: Mr Offer, you have a motion that strikes out clause 30(1)(b). In view of your support of Mr Ramsay's motion, you're going to not move that. Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: I withdraw clauses 30(1)(a) and (b).
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, you have a motion that addresses clause (k) of subsection 30(1) of the bill.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I do. This may be more difficult as time grows on--it's almost 5 o'clock--but it is clause 30(1)(k). We want to strike out clause (k), "fixing the amounts of fees for the purposes of section 21."
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, you're moving that subsection 30(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clause (k)?
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is in relation to section 21 of the bill under "Miscellaneous," which we haven't got to yet, where we're talking about, "OTAB may charge fees for its services, in the amounts fixed by the regulations made under this act." There were numbers who said this should be out. We have made that amendment because we agree with them. We shouldn't actually be doing this one, Mr Chairman. It's with the assumption that section 21 passes that we do it. I have high hopes that it won't. But we can do it; it doesn't matter.
The Chair: Ma'am, you can withdraw your motion and reserve the right to bring it further in these proceedings.
Mrs Cunningham: I'll just see what the Liberals are doing to this.
1700
The Chair: My understanding--and why I don't have any qualms--is that if you are successful in persuading the members of this committee to support your motion, it matters not whether section 21 passes or not, because you've simply eliminated the right of the Lieutenant Government in Council to make regulations passing fees, which in itself negates section 21.
Mrs Cunningham: That's right--"fixing the amounts of fees for the purposes of section 21"--so the assumption is that 21 will stay in by dealing with it now.
The Chair: My reason for permitting this at this point is that if this passes you've also, in effect, nulled any impact of section 21.
Mrs Cunningham: That's right; it won't matter. You're quite right. Let's deal with it now.
The Chair: Any further discussion around Ms Cunningham's motion? All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion fails.
Mrs Cunningham: Back to section 19.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham, you have a motion that addresses subsection 30(2) of the bill.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I want to go back to 19 because it's unclear to deal with 30 now. We should be at 19 and go back and work through it, Mr Chairman, really.
The Chair: Is that the will of the committee? Thank you very much.
Mrs Cunningham: It's subsection 19(1). Remember, we stopped and moved over to 30 after we did 18. We're now at 19(1).
Mr Sutherland: Mr Chair, can I just get a clarification, though, if we're moving back to 19? We've dealt with all the amendments on 30? Have we ratified 30 or no?
The Chair: We haven't dealt with all the amendments.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. That's all I wanted clarified.
Mrs Cunningham: It was becoming too confusing to go back.
Mr Sutherland: Sure. That's all I wanted clarified. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Cunningham moves that subsection 19(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall." You already made arguments to this motion when you spoke to your motion amending section 18. Do you wish those same arguments to apply to this motion?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes--
The Chair: And you move it as I've read it?
Mrs Cunningham: --and to expand upon them.
The Chair: Thank you. You want what?
Mrs Cunningham: To expand upon them.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I just want to reiterate for a moment with regard to the councils, because I really do want to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant on this one. He talked about the work of these councils or the subcommittees of the board of directors as being a criterion for the government to establish them. I just want to make certain that this is why he in fact won't agree or doesn't think he should agree to making this mandatory within the act, which would then agree with our amendment striking out "may" and substituting "shall." I just want to ask him again why he doesn't agree that this ought to be mandatory.
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right. The "may" makes it enabling rather than mandatory. We think that for the best accountability in the one case the local boards and in the other the councils have to be doing their job. This gives it more accountability to the government.
Mrs Cunningham: Although the parliamentary assistant has given us his rationale, it seems to me that the strength of the board has been the advice it's been getting from the councils and the subcommittees, and to this date those kinds of groups have been relied on heavily. The parliamentary assistant has presented the rationale for not supporting the amendment. I'm surprised, quite frankly, that these specialized committees are not going to be required by legislation. I'm surprised that you don't want to make this mandatory, that this structure wouldn't be necessary in any format to the OTAB itself. I can't imagine not having this kind of structure.
Mr Gary Wilson: Nor can we, but we're not sure exactly what form it's going to take. If it doesn't work, then adjustments would have to be made in them, that's all. It just allows us to do that without tying us down to one form in the legislation. When you talk about accountability I think it's very important that the government is able to make the adjustments it needs.
Mrs Cunningham: Is it your intent, then, as a government that if you do change the format, you come back and report to the House? How do you go about changing the councils or subcommittees of the board of directors? If you wanted a totally different format, how would you deal with it?
Mr Gary Wilson: That would be done in consultation with the labour market partners, through OTAB, and that allows the government discretion through the regulations. The regulations are designed in consultation with the OTAB directors. I'm not sure, though, Ms Cunningham, whether you're not referring to the reference groups when you mention the educators and trainers.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: Those are actually reference groups. There are councils which serve a different function.
Mrs Cunningham: Would you like to describe how many councils and what function they do?
Mr Gary Wilson: We expect there'll be four councils at this point.
Mrs Cunningham: Can you tell me the functions of the four councils?
Mr Gary Wilson: The councils have to do with the components of training: entry and re-entry, apprenticeship, labour adjustment, and sectoral and workplace training. Those are the four envisaged now, but as I say, there is a possibility that there could be more or that there could be fewer, depending on the kinds of negotiations or discussions that go on with OTAB.
Mrs Cunningham: But even if there are more or fewer, I can't see the problem with changing to "shall." Obviously within the regulations you're going to talk about the kind of things you need, but a number of groups came forward and said that councils should be mandatory, that the government should work with that model. As a matter of fact, I don't understand why you wouldn't at least put the model in the legislation. You have all kinds of discretion as to changing the makeup of the councils or the purpose of the councils within the regulations. That's what it says here.
Mr Gary Wilson: We believe this gives us the most discretion. Certainly we've listened to both the presenters to the committee as well as the earlier consultation. We think this will serve the purpose, by addressing the need both for councils and for reference groups.
Mrs Cunningham: So the local training and adjustment boards are mandatory, the funding is permissive and the councils are permissive?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion amending subsection 19(1) of the bill, please indicate. Opposed? Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
Mrs Cunningham: I won't go into shock about that, but we'll take a look at subsection 19(5), the same reassurance around the--
The Chair: Do you want to move the motion, please?
Mrs Cunningham: I'm sorry. I move that subsection 19(5) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
Again, at the request of a number of presenters, with regard to the remuneration and the expenses in accordance with the regulations, I'm not certain how one could be permissive about that, but I find it interesting that this government chooses to be that way. I'm certain that they're not being represented by a labour union at this point, because if they were, I can assure you that in any collective agreement people actually would insist on the word "shall" with regard to their own remuneration and expense payments in accordance with the regulations. But I'd be interested to hear the debate from the parliamentary assistant on this one.
Mr Gary Wilson: When you mention a labour union, that's a different kind of accountability structure, which is a contract. This is legislation, and what we're trying to do here is build in accountability that the government, since it's public money, has to have to make sure that the councils, in this case, are doing their job.
Mrs Cunningham: Which infers that labour unions aren't. Your analogy was that this is different, you need accountability, and labour unions aren't accountable in that regard. I'll buy that.
1710
Mr Gary Wilson: No, I said that it was a different structure, a different accountability model.
Mrs Cunningham: Very different.
Mrs Witmer: I'm not sure that I understand the reasoning here, in either one of the arguments. Why are you not paying council members remuneration and expenses? Why was that decision made?
Mr Gary Wilson: Why we're not?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. Mrs Cunningham has put forward a motion to change the "may" to "shall" and you simply want to stay with "may," leaving it optional. I guess I'm asking you, why are council members not going to be receiving payment in the form of remuneration and expenses?
Mr Gary Wilson: Ms Witmer, there's nothing here that says they won't receive remuneration. The way it's set out is that, again, it's discretionary on the part of the government, for the reasons I mentioned, the accountability.
Mrs Witmer: I'm not sure what accountability has to do with whether or not you pay them.
Mr Gary Wilson: Again, it says "according to the regulations." The regulations will set out what council members have to fulfil, and if they, for some reason or another, don't fulfil those obligations, then they wouldn't be paid, whereas if the legislation said they had to be paid, they would have to be paid under any circumstances.
Mrs Witmer: Are you going to set up sort of a system where you tick off whether or not they've fulfilled their duties and those who do will be paid and those who don't will not be paid? Is that what you're saying? I mean, it doesn't make much sense.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think the public expects us to be accountable with public money, so there will be some mechanism.
Mrs Witmer: I don't think that's at all what's intended in the legislation. I think this is simply consistent with 19(1), which says, "OTAB may establish councils," and in the same way you've said OTAB may pay those council members. I don't think accountability has anything to do, whatsoever, with this section at all.
Mr Gary Wilson: Okay, I will just say it again: The matters have to be worked out through regulation and that's where the details will be set, not in legislation.
Mr Offer: I have a question on this matter. The way it reads now, there will be a regulation that will say a council member will get, upon attendance, maybe expenses or a per diem; something like that, it will read. That would be by regulation. So that person goes to the council. There would be a discretion on the part of OTAB as to whether to pay that person the dollars in accordance with the regulation--
Mr Gary Wilson: No, if the regulation says they're paid, as you are outlining it, then they would be paid. That's what the regulation would stipulate.
Mr Offer: What would this address itself to then? The subsection says "remuneration."
Mr Gary Wilson: It's simply enabling. It sets out that the government can pay, or through OTAB can pay the--
Mr Offer: Let's put it into our language. We're on this committee. The Legislature isn't sitting. We get X amount of dollars per day to sit here. That's by agreement. The way I read this is that although we are entitled to that, if OTAB, or in this case let's say the Chair of the committee, says, "Well no, those persons shouldn't be paid," even though the regulations say that--
Mrs Cunningham: But we're not normally on this side of the argument; I want to assure you of this.
Mr Offer: I just want to get an idea as to what this actually means. It's quite intriguing.
Mr Gary Wilson: It will be by regulation. That's where that's set out, and if the regulation says that they would be paid, then OTAB would pay it. However, for budgeting accountability, it has to be enabling in the legislation itself.
Mr Offer: Well, it must be the time of day for me, because if the regulation says that a council member shall be paid X amount of dollars and the council member is there, then what role does OTAB have to play?
Mr Gary Wilson: OTAB will be part of the regulation.
The Chair: For the assistance of legislative research, is this section designed to put OTAB as a corporate or quasi-corporate body in a position where, by law, it is permitted to pay when regulations prescribe that it must?
Mr Gary Wilson: Yes.
The Chair: Legislative research is grateful.
All those in favour of Ms Cunningham's motion, please indicate. Opposed to Ms Cunningham's motion? Please take your seats when you vote. Ms Cunningham's motion is defeated.
We are now addressing section 19. Is there any further debate?
Mr Offer: Which one?
The Chair: Section 19. Any debate or discussion around section 19 of the bill? All those in favour of section 19? That is to say, shall section 19 carry?
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote. Please raise your hands and keep your hands raised until your name is called.
Ayes
Haeck, Huget, Malkowski, Martin, Sutherland, Wilson (Kingston and the Islands).
The Chair: All those opposed, please raise your hands and keep your hands raised until your name is called.
Nays
Brown, Cunningham, Offer, Witmer.
The Chair: Section 19 of the bill carries. We are now addressing section 20 of the bill. Mr Ramsay has a motion that he's tabled addressing subsection 20(1).
Mr Offer: By way of clarification, did Mr Ramsay indicate that he was withdrawing this motion or not?
The Chair: Not to me.
Mr Offer: Okay. Then I will move, on behalf of Mr Ramsay, that subsection 20(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Reference committees
"(1) Reference committees shall be established, in accordance with the regulations, by the groups named in subsection 9(2), and by the group named in section 10 if an additional director has been appointed under that section."
I believe the motion speaks for itself.
Mr Brown: I thought so too.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, you don't agree with the proposition contained in the motion?
Mr Gary Wilson: If it speaks for itself, it doesn't do a very good job. In any case, the problem is there is no identifiable person to whom this duty attaches.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson. There being no further debate around Mr Ramsay's motion, as moved by Mr Offer, all those in favour of Mr Ramsay's motion, as moved by Mr Offer, please indicate. Opposed? Mr Ramsay's motion, as moved by Mr Offer, is defeated. Ms Cunningham.
Mrs Cunningham: I move that subsection 20(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
These are the reference committees, Mr Chairman, that were referred to by the parliamentary assistant, and again we find ourselves in a position that this is probably where we should have put most of our emphasis. These were the committees that wanted to be reassured that they would be there as part of the bill, and mandatory as opposed to permissive. So perhaps in responding to this motion, the parliamentary assistant would kindly describe the reference committees for us and perhaps his rationale for not making them mandatory but, rather, permissive.
1720
Mr Gary Wilson: In this case, for a reference committee to be stipulated, there has to be a person who could be identified to whom the duty applies. You can't make it mandatory where there's nobody identifiable who would be there for it to apply to.
Mrs Cunningham: But wasn't the reason for not moving from "may" to "shall" on the other committees that they were identified and therefore would be exclusive; it would be exclusive if in fact we expanded upon it?
Mr Gary Wilson: I didn't quite follow that, but--
Mrs Cunningham: No. You said before that where we have made lists or been specific in our identification, you would not in fact accept that as part of the legislation because there may be someone excluded, there may be a group excluded. Now you're saying that we in fact--well, actually, I shouldn't try to say what you said. Why don't you say it again with regard to "exclusionary"? Say what you said all over again, because obviously I feel that you were contradicting yourself.
Mr Gary Wilson: I will let Kathleen explain this and then I will add something to it.
Ms Kathleen Beall: Perhaps I can assist the committee in this regard. I addressed this issue, I believe it was yesterday or the day before, explaining why in this particular instance, for legal reasons, there are problems with changing the word from "may" to "shall." The section says that reference committees may be established; it makes it possible that reference committees be established pursuant to this legislation. If the wording is changed to "reference committees shall be established," the question first arises that you have now created a statutory duty, but who has that duty?
You go on in the rest of the subsection and it says "reference committees may be established by the groups named in subsection 9(2)," which lists what are known as labour market partners, so it says "shall be established by representatives of business." There's no identifiable individual for that business. Does that mean that all business people across the province must get together to establish a reference group?
Similarly, a reference group would by perhaps, let's say, francophones. Again, who? There's no identifiable person to whom that duty applies. From a legal perspective, setting out a duty in legislation where there's no identifiable person to whom that duty attaches is improper creation of law from a legal level. There's no identifiable person who is to make the reference groups. There's a term which applies to a class or a group of people, but there's no identifiable person.
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I don't follow that. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if we're talking about the duty and choosing from within large groups, obviously there's a duty involved in subsection 9(2) to begin with and we're choosing from large groups.
I wouldn't begin to ask you whose responsibility it would be in this instance to strike the group of eight directors--and you can respond if you want to, I certainly understand--and the only one that's specific would be--and it isn't even specific in here, it's the intent of the government--is with regard to organized labour. They do have a group.
I don't understand, really, the problem with regard to these reference committees. You're saying if we say "shall," the responsibility is a duty for the appointment, or who sits on them, right?
Ms Beall: That's right. If you make it a "shall," you make it a statutory obligation, but there's no person to whom that obligation attaches. So it's legally a problem to create a duty without identifying who has that duty.
Mrs Cunningham: I guess my response to that is, then we've got a very big problem with section 9, because there's no person again on whom this responsibility could be conferred, even in the appointment of the directors, if we took that argument a step further. At least, I don't understand that.
Ms Beall: Perhaps just to explain further, in subsection 9(3) it says, "Each director shall be selected in consultation with organizations." Is that the subsection you're referring to?
Mrs Cunningham: That's fine.
Ms Beall: What that means is that the Lieutenant Governor does the appointment and the appointment is done after there has been a selection "in consultation with," so that duty falls on the government to consult.
Mrs Cunningham: You're saying we could correct this by adding another amendment and making the duty to appoint the responsibility of the government, and then it would work.
Ms Beall: If you did that, you would have a policy change, and at that point it would be a different issue. That would be up to the--
Mrs Cunningham: Okay, I understand now.
If we go to "shall," we have to add to our amendment in order to make it comply. Mr Chairman, given that advice, under subsection 20(1), "Reference committees may be established, in accordance with the regulations made under this act, by the groups named in subsection 9(2) and section 10," adding to that, we will say that each member of the reference committee--I'm tabling this just for consideration by the committee. I understand it wouldn't be fair to deal with it today.
Mr Gary Wilson: Could I tell you what we have done, though?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes. That's great. If you're going to be helpful, you can do that, yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: As I mentioned, I would add something to what Kathleen said laying out the legal--and as she pointed out, that would be a policy change. The reason we are doing it this way is that we want the labour market partners to determine whom they want to see on the reference committees.
Mrs Cunningham: So do I. My amendment only assumes that the labour market partners should be on these committees. I'm now looking at 9(3). I assume that even with "each director shall be selected in consultation with organizations representing the group that the director is to represent," the intent there is that the labour market partners be represented. Certainly, our intent with regard to section 20 on the reference committees would be that whatever the title of that reference committee would be, and you've already given us some examples of that, that those reference committees--
Mr Gary Wilson: Wait, now. The reference committees are tied to the labour market partners--
Mrs Cunningham: Yes.
Mr Gary Wilson: --to advise them and to give them information about where they see the needs for training, just to keep them in touch with what's happening in the community. They're different from the councils.
Mrs Cunningham: I understand that, but a good example of that would be the reference committee for education. Correct me if I'm wrong here. That's why I'm being insistent and I need your help. If you've got some ideas, tell me, but these people want to know that if there are just two representatives from the education sector, they get the best advice they can through the reference committees. Is that how it's going to work or otherwise? Is that the intent?
Mr Gary Wilson: That's right.
Mrs Cunningham: If that's the intent, then I really feel it's incumbent upon the government to give this more thought. When the education groups asked for further representation--the five seats would have been preferable--they were reassured that in fact the reference committees would be advising the board, hopefully a reference committee to business or labour or francophones or women or people with physical disabilities or whatever, and education would be speaking to its representatives first. That's usually how it works to get to the detail.
That's all we're saying, that they be reassured that they in fact "shall" be established. I understand what legal counsel is saying, and I think I have to add to section 20 to make it work within the legislation itself. I'm going to need some time to do that.
Mr Gary Wilson: I was hoping that with our explanation of why we're doing it this way--as Ms Beall pointed out, it's a policy change, and the reason we're going this way is that we think it will work through the setting of regulation, because again, that is done in consultation with the labour market partners.
1730
Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps the appropriate thing for me to do at this point in time, given the hour, is to ask the parliamentary assistant if, when the committee resumes, we could have some response to the regulations, and this very point is a good example. How will the regulations then give confidence to--and I'll be specific--the education reference committee that it will have the kind of authority that was inferred through answers to questions by the parliamentary assistant and questions by members of the committee but, more importantly, responses to the citizens who came before the committee--they say "witnesses" but I don't like that word--who came before the committee with this concern? I think it's a real concern. It gives the government an opportunity to respond to it, and if the response is helpful, then perhaps we could move on.
Mr Gary Wilson: I think we already have responded in the way that we're proposing to go about this. Again it comes after consultation with the labour market partners, and in the overall thrust of OTAB, where it's driven by the people with needs for training rather than those who are supplying it, and that again goes back to the structure of the directors.
Just so there will be a possibility of as wide a consultation and input as possible, we're setting up, as part of the structure, the reference committees. These will be established again with the consultation of the directors, and of course there are two directors from the educators and trainers. The regulations for those committees will be established in consultation with them, and we have to set up OTAB and have the directors appointed before that can happen.
Mrs Cunningham: I'll just close, Mr Chairman. The parliamentary assistant did say "will be"; it says here "may be." You know better than I the interchange between the words "will" and "shall," but we want regulations to assure the groups.
The Chair: You may as well ask legislative research to obtain for you the case law which judicially interprets the word "may" to mean "shall," but that's merely a suggestion.
Mrs Cunningham: That would be helpful, thank you, and I do ask that.
The Chair: That case law flourishes. There are piles of it. In any event, you're asking for that as well, because that might shed some insight into what counsel has been trying to tell the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: That would be great.
The Chair: It is now 5:32. This committee had agreed to sit until 5:30 today and that satisfies the period of time that was set aside by the motion in the House.
Before we leave, I want to make special note of the fact that while members of the committee have worked very hard and steadily throughout the week, there have been a number of staff persons who have provided great assistance to us: Adrian James from legislative broadcast services; and of course Deborah Caruso and Peggy Brooks from Hansard, who have been very patient and very cooperative; Anne Anderson, legislative research who has been monitoring the committee all week and providing us with ongoing input by way of research materials; Cornelia Schuh, a legislative counsel has been with us; and Tannis Manikel, the clerk who, as always, has been very efficient and very effective in performing her duties.
In particular, I want to thank Mr Huget, Mr Farnan and Mr Sutherland for assisting me in sitting in the Chair over the course of this week. I want to thank the members of the committee, of all caucuses, for the good-natured spirit with which they engaged in the discussion and the debate during the course of the week, their patience with me and their cooperation with me as a Chair. I am particularly grateful to them.
I want to thank the staff of the Ministry of Skills Development for their assistance to the committee during the course not only of this past week but of course the three weeks prior. I want to note that since my term or tenure as Chair expires on April 13--and whether or not I'm Chair of course depends upon the whim of the Premier's office--I want to tell the people in this committee that I am particularly grateful and gratified that this was the last set of hearings that I've been able to chair during this term as Chair. I obviously look forward to the opportunity to keep on doing it, but I recognize that you can't always get what you want.
I want to thank especially, once again, the members of the committee for not only the past four weeks but for the previous several months--high levels of cooperation, high levels of patience and tolerance on the part of staff and committee members. I have indeed learned a great deal about any number of things, including human nature, during that period of time.
I thank you. There's no need to adjourn, because this committee has exhausted its mandate as it exists now.
The committee adjourned at 1735.